
University of Texas Bulletin 

No. 1886: June 20, 1918 



A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WAR 



By 
FREDERIC DUNCAIiF 

Prof«»«or of Medieval History 




Published by the Unirersity six times a month and entered as 

seeond-clasfi matter at the postofflce at 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 



Publications of the University of Texas 

Publications Committee : 

P. W. Geapp, B. H. Grippith 

J. M. Bryant D". L. Henderson 

D. B. CABTEEIj I. P. HiLDEBRAND 

Prederio Duncalf E. J. Mathews 

Tlie University publishes bulletins six times a montb, so num- 
bered that the first two digits of the number show the year of 
issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For ex- 
ample, No. 1701 is the first bulletin of the year 1917.) These 
comprise the official publications of the University, publications 
on humanistic and scientific subjects, bulletins prepared by the 
Department of Extension and by the Bureau of Municipal 
Research and Reference, and other bulletins of general educa- 
tional interest. With the exception of special numbers, any 
bulletin will be sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. All 
oommunicationa about University publications should be ad- 
dressed to the Chairman of the Publications Committee, Uni- 
versity of Texas, Austin. 



B285-818-15m-8244 



University of Texas Bulletin 

No. 1835: June 20, 1918 



A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WAR 



By 



FREDERIC DUNCALF 

M 

Professor of Medieval History 




Published by the University six times a month and entered as 

second-class matter at the postoffice at 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 






t 



The benefits of education and of 
useful knowledge, generally diffused 
through a community, are essential 
to the preservation of a free govern- 
ment. 

Sam Houston 



Cultivated mind is the guardian 
genius of democracy. , , . It is the 
only dictator that freemen acknowl- 
edge and the only security that free- 
men desire. 

Mirabeau B. Lamar 



A Brief History of tlie War 

by 
Frederic Duncalf 

Professor of Medieval History 
University of Texas 



University of Texas Bulletin 



PREFACE 



This bulletin makes no pretense of being either a thorough 
or a final treatment of the war. Its purpose is merely to gather 
in concise form the more significant phases of the war, so that 
these may be taught in the schools of Texas, 

A heavy responsibility rests upon all teachers in our present 
crisis, for their instruction will have great influence upon the 
opinions of their pupils. Amid the bitterness and hatred that 
war develops, it becomes increasingly necessary for as many 
people as possible to keep clearly in mind the main issues of 
this conflict. Disloyalty and intrigue are abroad, and Ameri- 
cans should one and all so understand our part in this war that 
no doubt or faintheartedness can turn us aside from what we 
have undertaken to do. 

The teacher is advised to use Harding's Topical Outline of 
tJie War, which has been extensively drawn upon in the pre- 
paration of this bulletin. A vast amount of concise information 
is contained in the War Cyclopedia, published by the Committee 
on Public Information, Washington, D. C. (price 25 cents). A 
description of other publications issued by this committee may 
be found in the History Teachers' Bulletin, November 15, 1917. 
The History Teachers' Magazine is publishing much material of 
great value for th^ teaching of the war. 

F. D. 



^ A Brief History of the War 5 

A Brief History of the War 

CHAPTER I 

Conditions at the Outbreak of the War 

America 

The great war which began in the last days of July and the 
first days of August, 1914, surprised the people of America as a 
thunderbolt from a clear sky. As a people we had been too com- 
pletely absorbed in the settlement and development of our own 
rich country to be interested in the affairs of European peoples. 
In 1914 we began to educate ourselves in European history and 
world politics. As long as possible we tried to persuade our- 
selves that American interests were not involved, but as we saw 
more and more clearly the great issues at stake, realization came 
to us that the very principles upon which our country was 
founded were to live or perish on the battlefields of Europe. 
We discovered that the liberal, democratic peoples of Europe 
were fighting autocratic, reactionary states. When the Russian 
revolution overthrew the one despotic government on the allied 
side, the great significance of the war became still more evident. 
We rallied to our President's slogan: "The world must be made 
safe for democracy." American boys are dying in the trenches 
of FrancQ; surely every girl and boy Qiust learn what they are 
fighting for. 

Perhaps if history had been differently taught in our schools, 
the American people would have been prepared to decide that 
this was our war more quickly, and the war might be much 
nearer the end. The lesson which we can draw from such costly 
delay is to teach a new history in the future. The American 
citizen must no longer be as ignorant of world affairs as he has 
been in the past. He must be prepared to realize the part which 
America is now called to play in the world. The policy of a dem- 
ocratic nation will depend upon the understanding of its people. 

The Rivalry of European Nations 
We can now see that a European war had long been threat- 



6 University of Texas Bulletin 

ening. The competition of great nations liad led to such an in- 
tense rivalry for prestige and material gain that only a spark 
was needed to light the conflagration which burst forth in 1914. 
The United States is fortunately situated. No dangerous neigh- 
bors surround us. In Europe, smaller countries with larger pop- 
ulations border upon each other. The conflicting interests of 
these peoples and the desire to acquire more territory because of 
rapidly increasing populations confined in these boundaries are 
causes for rivalry which have never been experienced in Amer- 
ica. Add to this the intense competition for markets and col- 
onies, and you will understand why Europe has known wars in 
the past; why the preservation of peace has always been dif- 
ficult. 

To prevent any nation from becoming so strong that it would 
control all Europe, an effort has been made to preserve a bal- 
ance of power. Thus if one group of nations forms an alliance, 
other nations form an agreement to prevent the first group from 
becoming too powerful. In 1914 such an arrangement failed to 
prevent war, because Germany and Austria believed that their 
preparation and central position made them strong enough to 
upset the balance of power in Europe. To understand why 
Germany was anxious to do this, we must consider German pol- 
icy and why warlike ambitions developed in the minds of the 
German people. 

Priussia 

Throughout the Middle Ages and during most of the Modern 
period, Germany failed to attain a sense of national unity, or to 
develope a national government. Compared with France and 
England, Germany has been backward in her political growth. 
The German people have produced a great literature, they have 
made the world indebted to them for their music, their science 
and scholarship, but they have never learned to govern them- 
selves. Had they been left to themselves, they might have profited 
by the liberal movement that swept over Europe during the past 
century, but the present system of government came to Germany 
from Prussia, and this state has alwa3''s been autocratic. 

Early in the fifteenth century the Hohenzollern family began 



A Brief History of the War 7 

to rule Brandenburg. In 1868 the duchy of Prussia, which had 
been conquered from the Slavs by the Crusading order of Teu- 
tonic Knights, was added to the possessions of th'e Elector of 
Brandenburg. This territory was the nucleus of the later king- 
dom of Prussia, and was not nearly as fertile or rich in resources 
as the rest of Germany, while its inhabitants were less civilized 
than the South Germans. Notwithstanding this backwardness 
of their people, the Hohenzollerns pursued a consistent policy 
of developing their heritage, until they made it into the strong- 
^t power in all Germany. 

The Great Elector (1640-1688) made his power practically 
absolute. He created the foundations of a military state. Every 
phase of activity was directed toward the support of the army, 
which was large in proportion to the population. He induced 
outsiders to colonize his lands, and encouraged the development 
of agriculture and industry. Frederick the Great inherited a 
concentrated, well organized state in 1740, and. during his reign 
greatly increased his territory by taking Silesia from Austria, 
and acquiring West Prussia by the First Partition of Poland. 
This expansion was made possible by the organization of all the 
resources of the state in such a way as to increase its military 
strength. 

Such was the legacy which the early Hohenzollerns left to 
theii; successors, who have never failed to pursue the same policy 
of expansion by means of war. During the Napoleonic period, 
the old military system of Prussia broke down. The whole state 
had always been organized in such a way as to maintain a large 
standing army, but in the early days of last century the old 
army gave place to the system that is in use today, namely, 
universal military training, which means a nation in arms. This 
plan made Prussia one of the strongest states in all Europe. 

About the middle of the nineteenth century liberal ideas be- 
gan to spread throughout Germany. Rulers in South Germany 
granted constitutions to their subjects. In 1848 a convention met 
at Frankfort to draw up a constitution for all Germany. The 
position of Emperor was offered to Frederick William IV of 
Prussia, but he refused to accept this offer from liberals. How- 
ever, even the people of Prussia demanded a constitution and 



8 University of Texas Bulletin 

he granted them one, although he was very careful to arrange its 
provisions in such a way that his own power was not impaired. 
Thus Germany was making an effort to obtain some measure of 
self-government and had shown a certain desire for unity. Prus- 
sian statesmen willed that this unity should come through Prus- 
sian leadership, and with the smallest possible concession to 
liberalism. 

In 1864 Austria and Prussia defeated the Danish army, and 
took from Denmark the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein. In 
1866 Prussia declared war on Austria and quickly overwhelmed 
her by her superior military organization, thus destroying the 
traditional Austrian leadership in Germany. The North Ger- 
man Federation was then formed, which gave Prussia still great- 
er influence in Germany, and was a great step toward unity, 
but Germany was not united. In the Franco-German war, 
France was as completely defeated as Austria had been. This 
war, in 1870-71, gave all Germany an opportunity to fight 
against a common enemy, and in the spirit that was born in this 
struggle, the German nation found itself. The result was the 
creation of the German Empire of today. 

Bismarck has been greatly praised for this achievement. 
Throughout her entire history, Germany had suffered greatly 
from lack of unity. Today she is a strong national state. How- 
ever, it is well to ask whether or not Germany might not have 
achieved unity without Bismarck's policy of "blood and iron''? 
If Germany had united in a slower but more natural way, 
might she not be more liberal and democratic today? Prussian 
guidance has made Germany great and prosperous ; has it not 
prevented the German people from acquiring something more 
important — the responsibility of governing themselves? 

The German Constitution 

The German Empire is made up of the different states which 
were independent in 1871, each having its separate -govern- 
ment. The laws for the Empire are made by a legislative body, 
composed of two houses, the Bundesrat and the Reiclistag. The 
former consists of delegates appointed by the rulers of the 25 
states that compose the Empire. The total number of delegates 



A Brief History of the War 9 

is 61. Unlike the United States Senate, the delegations from 
the separate states are not equal in number. Prussia has 17 
delegates, to which must be added three from Alsace and Lor- 
raine, which are appointed by the Emperor, Bavaria has 6, 
Saxony and Wurtemburg 4 each, and the other states, a smaller 
number each. In the United States Senate, each member votes 
as he pleases, but in the Bundesrat the delegates from each state 
vote as a unit and according to the instructions from the rulers 
who appoint them. Thus the Prussian delegates vote as the Em- 
peror, or King of Prussia, dictates. The Bundesrat is in no 
sense a popular assembly, but represents strictly the rulers of 
the German states. 

The Reichstag is the popular house. It contains 397 members 
elected for a five-year term. But unlike our lower house it is 
in no sense representative of the people, because in the first 
place the districts from which the members are chosen are no 
longer equal in population. Suppose that the congressional 
districts of the United States had not been changed for 46 
years, and you will realize that some men would have less rep- 
resentation than others. In the second place, the votes of the 
people who have the most property count more than those of 
poor people. 

Powers of Legislative Bodies 

The action of public opinion is still more restricted by the 
limited powers conferred upon the Reichstag. All bills which 
do not originate in the Bundesrat, must be approved by it. 
Inasmuch as the Bundesrat in no sense represents the people^ 
any bill from the more popular house can be vetoed by the 
princes, the Emperor himself controlling a third of the votes 
cast in this body. Furthermore, the constitution provides no 
way in which the people can improve their position if tlie princes 
are opposed to reform. The votes of Prussia can veto any con- 
stitutional amendment as only 14 votes are necessary for this 
purpose. 

The Executive 

The Emperor does not have a direct veto, but can dissolve 



10 University of Texas Bulletin 

the legislature at will. He can declare a defensive war without 
the consent of the Bundesrat. In 1914 he declared war with- 
out its consent. He appoints the chancellor arid all imperial 
officials, and all officers in the Prussian army. On the whole, 
the Emperor has great legal poAver, but the slight control over 
him which the Reichstag might have is still further weakened 
by the fact that there is no two party system as in this country. 
Several parties are always in existence, representing different 
interests, and this makes any united resistance to governmental 
policy almost impossible. By playing politics the government 
can increase its power. What does the Emperor think of his 
power? ''Looking upon myself as the instrument of the Lord, 
regardless of the views and opinions of others, I go on my 
way." "Only one is master in this country. That is I. Who 
opposes me, I shall crush to pieces. All of j^ou have only one 
will, and that is my will ; there is only one law, and that is my 
law." There is no need to go further to show what Germany is 
ruled by an autocratic government. Any people who will tol- 
erMe such a statement from their executive is in no sense a 
free people. 

Why Germany Has Not Become Democratic 

Since the outburst of liberalism in the middle of last cen- 
tury the German people has made little effort to obtain fur- 
ther political rights. The only reason which can be given for 
this political apathy is that the Germans are satisfied with the 
government which they have. It must be remembered that Ger- 
many has suffered greatly from disunity. Germans have not 
learned the value of self-government as have the English and 
Americans. They have never had a great revolution as have the 
French. They have always been content to be governed. On the 
other hand, it must be remembered that Germany has been ex- 
tremely well governed. Many of the functions of government are 
better performed there than in democratic countries. Americans 
can still learn much from the methods of administration that pre- 
vail in Germany. Furthermore, Germariy has become very pros- 
perous since the establishment of the Empire, and for this ma- 
terial well-being the German is very grateful to his rulers. 



A Brief History of the War 11 

Germany has paid for all this lack of control over her rulers 
by being precipitated into a terrible war. Had that not hap- 
pened, no other people would have wished to interfere with the 
government of the German people so long as they were satis- 
fied. We now see that the German people, not knowing the value 
of political rights, have no respect for the rights of other peo- 
ples. They do not appreciate the fact that other peoples wish 
to govern themselcves and have the right to do so. Prussian 
ideas have been forced on Germany, why should they not be 
forced on other peoples? Thus they have forced their rule upon 
the Poles and Alsace-Lorraine. By what right? Merely be- 
cause they were strong enough to conquer them. Today they 
wish to force the world to accept their rule. Thus the Mili- 
tary Government of Germany, based upon the acceptance of such 
government by the German people, is responsible for the in- 
fliction of the horrors of war upon other nations. Today we 
know that the surest safeguard against war is the conversion 
of all peoples to democracy. The military autocracy which rules 
Germany must be destroyed, if the world is to have the assur- 
ance of future peace. 

Germa7iy's Demand for a "Place in the Sun" 

Had the question of Germany's going to war been put to a 
vote, it is not improbable that the people would have voted 
for war. They have long been taught that they would derive 
great benefits from war. Furthermore, strange as it may seem 
to us, they believe that they wage a defensive war. They feel 
that they must break the "ring of iron" about them so that 
they may have room to expand. German population has been 
increasing rapidly, as has her commercial and industrial devel- 
opment. Hence, the Germans believe that colonies and more 
territory are essential to the future development of their na- 
tion. In order to break the bonds that restrict them, they think 
that any war upon their neighbors, no matter what might be 
its immediate cause, could be classed as a defensive war. 

In a general sense, it is not difficult to understand this feel; 
ing. As our history shows, the American people have never 
ceased to expand. Our expansion has been across an unoccupied 



12 University of Texas Bulletin 

continent. German expansion must come by the conquest of 
other civilized peoples, who must give up their territory that 
the German race may become greater. The English people have 
expanded into all parts of the world. Germany finds that there 
is no longer any part of the world open to colonization. She 
has entered the field too late. She can thank circumstances, 
and it may be noted that Bismarck did not favor German colo- 
nization. The German people think that they have a grievance 
because other peoples ,have got ahead of them. Does this 
justify their taking from other people what they have already 
settled, and made their own? Would Germany be justified in 
asking the United States to give up half of her territory that 
Germans might occupy it? 

Some thirty million Germans have left their homes and set- 
tled in other countries. Thus Germany's surplus population 
has been relieved. The objection to this method of relief is that 
these emigrants cease to be Germans and refuse to support the 
greatness of the Empire. Germany desires all people of German 
descent to remain together and to be Germans always. 

Germany claims a share of the trade of the world. She is 
jealous of the world trade of England. English free trade 
enables German manufacturers to undersell English manufac- 
turers even in English markets. The excellence of her goods, 
.and the cheapness of her labor, has enabled Germany to win 
much of the world's trade by free competition. Furthermore, 
by means of government subsidies German merchants have 
brought unfair competition into foreign markets. "Why was it 
necessary for her to go to war to gain trade? 

Germany had no justifiable reason for seeking to expand at 
the expense of the rights of other peoples. We can hardly sym- 
pathize with the statement of the Crown Prince: "It is only 
by relying on our good German sword that we can hope to 
conquer that place in the sun which rightly belongs to us, and 
which no one will ever yield to us voluntarily." The Germans 
have never explained to us just what this "place in the sun 
which rightly belongs" to them is. Whatever place the Ger- 
man people might win by peaceful means would never be de- 
nied them. Before the war they had gained the respect and ad- 



A Brief History of tJie War 13 

miration of the world and had obtained markets 'for their goods. 
Why did they barter these away for the contempt and hatred of 
peoples who had been friendly to them? Germany's "place in 
the sun" means empire, power, domination ol other peoples, 
which is to be obtained by military power. 

The War Party 

To convert the people of Germany to a belief in the neces- 
sity of war, a party arose in Germany which had the avowed 
purpose of spreading war propaganda. The Pan-German League 
was organized in 1890. Its object was to keep united the Ger- 
mans who had left the Fatherland, and to prevent them from 
forgetting that they were Germans. As the League grew 
stronger, it came to urge a policy of expansion by means of war. 
The Navy League and the Defense Association, as well as other 
organizations, participated in a great campaign for a more 
active foreign policy. By such a campaign on the part ot the 
military party, larger and larger appropriations were obtained 
for the army and navy bills, and the German people were in- 
duced to believe that the future of Gerinany depended upon 
her waging a world war. 

Justification of War 

Americans believe that war should only be resorted to when 
all other means have failed. War is destructive of national 
resources and destroys the best manhood of the peoples who 
engage in it. Sane people believe that war is a calamity. On 
the contrary, there are men in Germany who have long taugnt 
that war is a positive good. They apply Darwin's theory of 
the "survival of the fittest" to nations and say that only the 
strongest have the right to live. But they make war the only 
test of fitness, or at least all qualities which contribute to war. 
They say that continued peace makes a people soft and corrupt. 
Such a doctrine would make war the final test of civilization. 
The pursuits of peace would have no justification for existence 
except as they made a nation stronger for war. Bernhardi's 
doctrines read strangely to Americans. "War is an instru- 
ment of progress, a regulator in the life of humanity, an in- 
dispensable factor in civilization, a creative power." 



14 University of Texas Bulletin 

From such a premise it is an easy step to a still more dan- 
gerous doctrine, namely, that might makes right. Suppose that 
there were no laws in Texas and no government to protect the 
rights of the individual citizen. The weak man would be at 
the mercy of the strong man. But the law says that the weak 
have the same right as the strong. Germany assumes that 
weaker nations have no rights. "Might gives the right to 
occupy or to conquer. Might is the supreme right, and the 
dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrament of 
war." — Bernhardi. Germany thus has no respect for inter- 
national law. A treaty, which is an international contract, is 
merely a "scrap of paper." 

The Mission of Germany to Spread German Kultur 

Germany has a still more obnoxious doctrine. It is claimed 
that Germany possesses the purest of all races, since French, 
English, and Americans have come from a mixture of different 
peoples. Applying the biological theory that a pure race will 
produce the highest type of civilization, they came to the con- 
elusion that the German civilization was superior to that of 
other races. Without any trace of moderation they asserted that 
this was so, and consequently it was the duty of the German 
people to carry their Kultur (civilization) to other peoples. 
This missionary undertaking was to be carried out by force. 
"We are the salt of the earth," said Kaiser William. "We 
feel ourselves to be the bearers of superior Kultur." "We have 
no doubt that a defeat of our people would retard the devel- 
opment of mankind," said a German pastor. "God has called 
us to civilize the world: we are the missionaries of human 
progress." — Emperor William. The world has learned what 
this superior Kultur is. 

The German people came to believe in the necessity of war. 
Material prosperity, colonies, territory could be gained by the 
superior military qualities of the German race. War was noble, 
holy, heroic. The blessings of German civilization were to be 
carried to other peoples. From a nation infected with such 
ideas, the peace of the world was in serious danger. 



A Brief History of the War 15 

The Growth of Large Armaments 

Since the Franco-Grerman war in 1870-71 Europe has be- 
come a great armed camp. Each nation has claimed that the 
maintenance of a great army was the surest means of preserv- 
ing peace. Germany has maintained a standing army equal 
to one percent of her population. Her plan of universal 
military service further enables her to call out her entire able- 
bodied population if necessary. In 1886 France with a smaller 
population actually surpassed Germany in the race, but Ger- 
many was soon able to regain her lead. At the outbreak of the 
war Russia had some 5,900,000 trained men ; Germany 4,000,000 ; 
France 3,800,000; Austria-Hungary, 4,300,000; Great Birtain, 
772,000 (including territorials or militia). The war has dem- 
onstrated that the German Military machine was superior, while 
that of Russia was inferior and easily broken. England had to 
create an entirely new army from civilians. 

Likewise Germany entered a contest with Great Britain in 
navy building. English statesmen repeatedly sought to come 
to some agreement as to the rate of building, but Germany 
would not give up her plans of building a navy equal to Eng- 
land's. At the outbreak of the war, the German navy was sec- 
ond to that of Great Britain. 

Efforts to Limit the Preparation for War 

There were many who saw that suv.h great armaments were 
more likely to bring war than to preserve peace. They believed 
that the taxpayers should be relieved of such heavy burdens. 
In 1898 the Tsar of Russia proposed a conference of the powers 
to see if there could not be some agreement among the nations 
for a reduction of the size of their armies and navies. The first 
Peace Congress met at The Hague in 1899. The second Congress 
met in 1907. The chief results were the drawing up of a set of 
rules to govern the conduct of civilized nations when at war and 
the establishment of a permanent court to which the nations of 
the world could refer their grievances for arbitration. How- 
•ever, the Conference failed to secure any agreement for the re- 
duction of armaments, because Germany and Austria would not 



16 University of Texas Bulletin 

consent. All nations who feared Germany had to continue to 
prepare for war. 

The United States has concluded about 30 peace treaties 
with other nations. The plan of these treaties is that all dis- 
putes between the contracting parties shall be submitted to an 
International Commission, and that- war shall not be declared 
until there has been investigation and a report submitted by 
this tribunal. The United States has been unable to conclude 
such a treaty with Germany. Consequently, the failure of the 
peace movement must be laid on Germany. 

No final historical judgment can be pronounced upon this 
war for perhaps half a century. The archives of Europe eon- 
tain many documents which will cause the modification of 
our present conclusions. However, there is enough information 
at hand to show that Germany was a warlike state. She was 
preparing for war and desired war. It remains to see what 
were her actions during the days in July, 1914, when Europe 
was trying to avert war. 



A Brief History of the War 17 

CHAPTER II 
Historical Background of the War 

The Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) 

In order to understand why a quarrel between Austria and 
the small state of Serbia involved Russia and Germany, then 
France and England, and finally Italy, it is necessary to trace 
the main outline of European history since 1870. 

In the Franco-German war, Germany completely defeated 
France because of the superiority of her military system. France 
had long been the disturbing factor in European affairs, and 
it was generally believed that the establishment of a strong 
state in Germany would be an effective check on future French 
aggression. However, Germany took advantage of her victory to 
humiliate France, and the latter country could not forget the 
injustice of the terms imposed by the conquerer. An indem- 
nity of one billion dollars was demanded, and German troops 
were to occupy French territory until the last installment was 
paid. Alsace and Lorraine, which had been a part of France 
since the days of Louis XIV and Louis XV, were annexed to 
Germany. 

During these troubles, amid civil war and general disorgani- 
zation, a new government, the Third Republic, was created in 
France. France began to reconstruct herself. So anxious were 
the French people to rid their soil of the hated German soldiers 
that they paid off the last of the indemnity six months be- 
fore the three-year period set by the treaty had expired. The 
last government loan was subscribed fourteen times over by the 
eager patriotism of the people. Thus, if the war resulted in 
the establishment of a new German Empire, it also brought a 
rebirth of the French nation. 

Though France showed wonderful recuperative power in re- 
covering from the disaster which had befallen her, she was un- 
able to forget her lost provinces. In 1871 the representatives 
from these provinces in the national assembly said : ' ' Our broth- 
ers of Alsace and Lorraine, now cut off from the common family, 



18 University of Texas Bulletin 

will preserve their filial affection for the France now absent 
from their homes until the day when she returns to take her 
place there again." German methods of repression and military 
rule have not yet succeeded in making the population of these 
provinces German. For forty years and more, the wrong done 
to the people of these provinces has been a menace to the peace 
of Europe. 

The Triple Alliance 

In the hostility thus created between France and Germany 
we have one reason for the present alignment of the Powers of 
Europe. Bismarck felt the need of strengthening Germany 
against a possible effort on the part of France to recover Alsace 
and Lorraine. A friendly understanding was arranged between 
the three emperors of Germany, Austria, and Russia. This com- 
bination did not last long. Austria and Russia had conflicting 
interests in the Balkans. At the Congress of Berlin, 1878, Ger- 
many sided with Austria, who was then allowed to occupy Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, and Russia was deprived of the advantages 
gained in her war with Turkey. Russia was definitely isolated 
when Austria and Germany concluded a treaty in 1879, which 
provided that each should help the other if either were attacked 
by Russia. If either party was attacked by any state other 
than Russia, the other party was to remain neutral until Rus- 
sia came in. In 1882, this dual alliance was made into a Triple 
Aliance by the inclusion of Italy. Irritated by the French co- 
lonial expansion in Africa, Italy Avished the backing of Germany 
and Austria. This alliance of the three central powers lasted 
until the war broke out in 1914. However, previous to that 
time, Italy had become a lukewarm member, because she found 
that Austrian ambitions conflicted with her own. She also came 
to realize that her future was greatly affected by the control 
of the Mediterranean by the seapower of England and France. 
Consequently, she refused to join Austria and Germany in the 
war, because she claimed that by the terms of the alliance she 
was only bound to support her allies if they were attacked. 
On May 23, 1915, she declared war on Austria. 



A Brief History of the War 19 

The Dual Alliance 

This combination caused Russia and France to feel that they 
needed each other's support. Inasmuch as their needs did not 
conflict and they both feared Germany, they formed a Dual 
Alliance in 1891. 

Change in English Policy 

England was free from alliances. France and England had 
been traditionally unfriendly. England had fought France 
again and again to prevent her from dominating the continent 
of Europe. English statesmen had long feared Russia as a 
menace to British interests in the East. To prevent Russian 
expansion to the Mediterranean, England had long striven to 
maintain Turkish integrity, and had fought with France against 
Russia in the Crimean war. Russian expansion in central Asia 
brought her dangerously near to British India, That England 
should coi^e to a friendly understanding with France and Rus- 
sia seemed impossible, and yet this happened. 

The Boer war taught England that she had no friends. On 
the continent and in America the war was condemned. She 
ended by giving the Boers everything that they had fought for 
except separate independence, and South African loyalty 
today "is proof of the wisdom of her settlement. She further 
adopted a policy of removing whatever differences existed be- 
tween herself and other countries. , A long series of treaties 
with other nations indicates the peaceful character of British 
policy since the Boer war. 

England also began to fear Germany. The determination of 
the German government to build a great navy was a challenge 
to British control of the seas. She felt that her navy must be 
the strongest in existence, or her scattered empire would be fa- 
tally endangered. In addition, German activities in the Bal- 
kans and the control that she came to exercise over Turkey 
made her more dangerous to British interests in the East than 
Russia has ever been. 

The Anglo-French Entente (1904) 
After the Franco-German war the French interested them- 



20 • University of Texas Bulletin 

selves in colonizing Northern Africa. Algeria had already been 
occupied in 1830, In 1881, a protectorate was established over 
Tunis. France and England had been jointly interested in 
Egypt, but in 1881 when England began a definite policy of regu- 
lating the finances of this country and establishing order, France 
declined to be a party to such occupation. 

In 1904, France and England came to a friendly understand- 
ing {Entente Cordiale), which settled all differences between 
the two countries. It was agreed that England was to control 
the Suez canal and Egypt, necessary to her as the shortest route 
to India. On the other hand, France was to have a free hand 
in the development of her colonial policy in Western Africa, 
particularly in Morocco. 

In 1907, England and Russia came to an understanding about 
their differences. Persia was divided into a British and Rus- 
sian sphere of influence, which was a check to further German 
penetration of Asia, This completed the Triple Entente, but it 
must be remembered that England's connection with either 
France or Russia was in no sense a defensive alliance. As the 
negotiations before the war indicate, England was not bound 
to help these countries. 

Results of British Diplomacy 

England also concluded an alliance with Japan, as well as 
with Portugal. She was on friendly terms with Spain. It was 
not the fault of England that a similar understanding was not 
arranged with Germany. Germany and Austria complained 
that English diplomacy had left them isolated. German writers 
attributed the "ring of iron" to England's efforts. England 
was the great rival that Germany feared. 

At times there had been bad feeling in both countries, but 
there is little evidence to show that England sought to destroy 
Germany or was planning a war against her. There - is evi- 
dence to show that English statesmen sought to come to 'an un- 
derstanding with Germany, and if Germany had met English 
advances she might have been on as good terms with England 
as were France and Russia. We can better understand the atti- 
tude of the two countries if we consider the parts played by 



A Brief History of the War 21 

each in the various diplomatic crises which disturbed Europe 
during the last twenty years before the war. 

The Morocco Question 

Bismarck had been favorable to French colonial ambitions in 
Africa, because he thought that this activity would cause the 
French to forget Alsace and Lorraine ; he also hoped that Anglo- 
French interests would clash. The Entente of 1904 ended the 
possibility of colonization being a bone of contention between 
England and France. Thenceforth Germany seemed to desire 
to interfere with French plans in Africa. 

Morocco was a decayed Moorish state adjoining French co- 
lonial territory. As to the merits of French claims in Morocco, 
it can be said that France and Spain had the greatest interest 
in establishing order in this country. The continent of Africa 
had been divided up into French, English, Belgian, Italian, and 
German protectorates, or spheres of infiuence. Africa was a 
backward continent, and control of it by European nations meant 
colonization, establishment of better order, and the introduc- 
tion of Western civilization. The justification for such occu- 
pation depends entirely upon the good results that this policy 
may produce. The United States justifies its control of the 
Philippine Islands by the benefits which it bestows on the in- 
habitants. The first cause of the occupation of territory in this 
manner is the need of protecting the trade that has already 
developed. As occupation becomes more permanent, other re- 
sults follow. British trade with Morocco was greater than that 
of any other (30untry, and it was to France's interest to establish 
order there. 

Germany decided that she was interested in Morocco. The 
Russo-Japanese war had left Russia in such a disorganized 
state that she was unable to support her ally, and perhaps 
Germany wished to know just how far England would go in 
backing Frauce. On March 31, 1905, the German Emperor 
landed at Tangier, where he made a speech in which he declared 
that the Sultan was an independent ruler. This was equivalent 
to saying that Germany would oppose French penetration of 
Morocco. Germany demanded that Morocco be placed under 



22 University of Texas Bulletin 

the protection of all the powers, and a conference of represen- 
tatives of all great nations was called to meet at Algeciras. ' 

The Algeciras Conference (1906) 

Germany's case seemed reasonable, but she rather spoiled 
it by her arrogant attitude. With the exception of Austria all 
the powers represented decided against Germany. The United 
States was represented, as was also Italy. Morocco was placed 
under French protection, as it was believed that France was the 
only state able to keep order in the country. The situation was 
very similar to that at the Congress of Berlin, when Bosnia and 
Herzegovina were entrusted to Austrian care. Germany had 
appealed to the powers and had lost. Her next move was an 
effort to nullify the action of the international conference. 

Second Morocco Crisis (1911) 

Germany sought to make a special arrangement with France, 
by which she should have special commercial privileges in Mo- 
rocco, although France was to have political control. Such 
an agreement was quite the opposite of the internationalization 
which she had formerly advocated. The arrangement which was 
made did not work out satisfactorily to Germany, and in 1911 
she sent the cruiser Panther to Agadir, on the plea that it 
was necessary to protect the interests of her merchants. Ap- 
parently Germany wished to make France divide Morocco with 
her. A serious situation was cheated by the appearance of a 
German warship in Moroccan waters, and for a time it seemed 
that Europe might be brought to war. England took the ground 
that France should be allowed to settle the matter without be- 
ing influenced by any threat of force. She made it clear to 
Germany that she stood for a square deal for France. Germany 
thereupon backed down, as her bluff had failed. She came to 
an agreement with France by which she recognized a French 
protectorate in Morocco in return for concessions in the Congo. 

The Pan-Germans were disgusted. "Morocco is easily worth 
a big war, or several. At best — and even prudent Germany is 
getting to be convinced of this — war is only postponed, and 
not abandoned. Is such postponement to our advantage? . . . . 



A Brief History of the War 33 

They say we must wait for a better moment. Wait for the deep- 
ening- of the Kiel Canal, for our navy laws to take full effect. 
It is not exactly diplomatic to announce publicly to one's ad- 
versaries, ' To go to war does not tempt us now, but three years 
hence we will let loose a world war' .... No; if a war is re- 
ally planned, not a word of it must be spoken; one's designs 
must be enveloped in profound mystery; then brusquely, all of 
a sudden, jump on the enemy like a robber in the darkness." 
— Albrecht Wirth, Unsere aussere PoUtik, 1912. ^Yar Cyclo- 
pedia, Morocco Question. The Pan-Germans from this time on 
clamored for war. The sword was rattling in its scabbard. 

The immediate excuse was not to be found in Morocco, for 
Germany was not yet prepared. The immediate cause was to 
be found in the Balkans. It is necessary to trace the main out- 
lines of the history of Eastern Europe. 

Rise of the Balkan States 

The question which had long threatened the peace of Europe 
was what was to become of the territory of Turkey in Europe, 
for Turkey was gradually becoming weaker, and was unable 
to govern her European provinces properly. One by one the 
peoples of this Balkan country became restless and freed them- 
selves from Turkish rule by outside help. Greece had first ob- 
tained her independence after the war of 1828-29. The decisive 
factor had been the campaign of Russia against Turkey. Aus- 
tria had not helped. A final settlement was reached by which 
Russia, France, and England became guarantors of an inde- 
pendent constitutional government in Greece. Moldavia and 
Wallachia became autonomous, while in 1830 Serbia obtained 
autonomy with Russian support, although she still owed tribute 
to the Sultan. 

In 1853 Nicholas I of Russia proposed to the English Gov- 
ernment that inasmuch as Turkey was a "sick man" England 
and Russia should proceed to divide Turkish territory between 
them. England declined, and when Russia invaded Turkish ter- 
ritory, England and France went to the aid of the Sultan in 
1854, and the Crimean war stopped Russian expansion South- 
ward and preserved Turkish integrity. 



24 University of Texas Bulletin 

In 1866 a HohenzoUern prince, Charles I, became ruler of 
both Moldavia and Wallachia, tAvo states which united to be- 
come Roumania. In 1875 a revolution in Bulgaria was punished 
by the Turks with such atrocities that European sentiment was 
aroused. Russia again declared war in 1877. Aided by Rou- 
mania, Serbia, and Montenegro, she defeated Turkey, and by the 
terms of the Treaty of San Stephano, the independence of Serbia, 
Montenegro, and Roumania was recognized, while Bulgaria be- 
came a selfgoverning state, although a tributary of Turkey. 
However, the Powers interfered with this arrangement. By the 
treaty of Berlin, 1878, Russia was deprived of the territorial 
gains which she had made, and Macedonia and Roumelia were 
taken from Bulgaria. Austria was allowed to occupy Bosnia 
and Herzegovina. 

Up to the. Treaty of Berlin, the decline of Turkey had re- 
sulted in the establishment of five Balkan states. Russia had 
championed the cause of these peoples, who were Slav and 
Christian. Russian interest was not exclusively humanitarian, 
however. It has long been the dream of Russian statesmen 
to secure an outlet for their country to the Mediterranean. Eng- 
lish fear of Russia led her to oppose this, and we find England 
championing the cause of Turkey. In the meantime England 
was securing herself in Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean. 

Development of German Interests in the East 

Bismarck once said that the whole Eastern question was "not 
worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier." Since the Treaty 
of Berlin, Germany has shown an increasing interest in the 
Balkans and Western Asia. Germany and Austria have de- 
veloped a plan which would enable them to exploit the Balkans 
and the near East for their own advantage. 

Germany has come to supplant England as the protector and 
adviser of Turkey. The Turkish army has been reorganized 
by German officers. Germany has sought to extend her influence 
beyond Turkey. In 1898, in a speech at Damascus, Emperor 
William said, "The three hundred million Mohammedans who 
live scattered over the globe may be assured of this, that the 
German Emperor will be their friend at all times." Germany 



A Brief History of the War 25 

has sought to promote Mohammedan solidarity in order to fur- 
ther her own interests. 

In order to develope the resources of Asia ]\Iinor and Meso- 
potamia, and to obtain a direct route to the far East, Germany 
secured concessions for the construction of a railroad from Con- 
stantinople to Bagdad (1740 miles). The plan to extend this 
road to the Persian Gulf was opposed by Great Britain. How- 
ever, in 1914, just before war broke out, a satisfactory agree- 
ment seems to have been reached between England and Ger- 
many concerning this extension. This railroad will greatly fa- 
cilitate the development of this territory. Friction arose be- 
cause of its political significance in view of Germany's ambitions 
in the East. 

President Wilson summarized Germany's ambitions in cen- 
tral Europe and the East in his Flag Day address, July 14, 1917. 
"Their plan was to throw a broad belt of German military 
power and political control across the center of Europe, and 
beyond the Mediterranean into the heart of Asia; and Austria- 
Hungary was to be as much their tool and pawn as Serbia or 
Bulgaria or Turkey or the ponderous states of the East. Aus- 
tria-Hungary, indeed, was to became part of the central Ger- 
man Empire, absorbed and dominated by the same forces and 
influences that had originally cemented the German states them- 
selves. The dream had its heart at Berlin. It could have a 
heart nowhere else! It rejected the idea of solidarity of race, 
entirely. The choice of peoples played no part in it at all. It 
contemplated binding together racial and political units which 
could be kept together only by force — Czechs, Magyars, Croats, 
Serbs, Roumanians, Turks, Armenians — the proud states of Bo- 
hemia and Hungary, the stout little commonwealths of the Bal- 
kans, the indomitable Turks, the subtile peoples of the East. 
These peoples did not wish to be united. They ardently de- 
sired to direct their own affairs, would be satisfied only by un- 
disputed independence. They could be kept quiet only by the 
presence or constant threat of armed men. They would live 
under a common power only by sheer compulsion and await 
the day of revolution. But the German military statesmen had 



26 University of Texas Bulletin 

reckoned with all tliat and were ready to deal with it in their 
own way." 

Austrian Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1909) 

In July, 1908, occurred the "Young Turk" revolution which 
overthrew the rule of the Sultan Abdul Hamid. The revo- 
lutionists believed that this ruler's policy was weakeninsr Tur- 
key, and that reforms were needed to reconstruct Turkish 
strength. Germany quickly accepted the revolution and main- 
tained her influence at Constantinople. 

Austria took advantage of this situation to annex Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, although this was contrary to the terms of the 
Treaty of Berlin, by which they had been entrusted to her care. 
Russia was not in a position to protest vigorously. Serbia felt 
that her interests were involved, and a serious diplomatic crisis 
arose. By the intervention of England and France, war was 
averted, and Serbia was forced to comply. Russia felt that 
Austria had taken advantage of her, and had been able to carry 
out this highhanded action because she had the complete back- 
ing of Germany. 

The Balkan Wars (1912-1913) 

In 1911 Italy made war on Turkey, and took possession of 
Tripoli. This was one more factor to increase the unrest in 
the Balkans. A league consisting of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, 
and Montenegro was formed for the purpose of driving Turkey 
out of Europe. The Balkan states were determined to settle 
their own problems. The Turkish army, which had been under 
German tutelage, was quickly defeated, to the surprise of the 
Powers. A treaty was made with Turkey, enabling her to keep 
Constantinople, but the territory Avon was distributed among 
the various victorious states. 

•This result was not to the liking of Germany and Austria. 
If this league remained intact, it meant that their proposed 
"corridor" to the East would be shut. Consequently, they in- 
cited Bulgaria to turn upon her allies. A Bulgarian attack on 
Serbia started a second war. However, Greece came to Ser- 
bia's aid, as did Roumania. The latter state had not taken part 



A Brief History of the War 27 

in the first war, and was consequently fresh. Bulgaria was com- 
pletely defeated, and by the treaty of Bucharest in 1913, a new 
arrangement of Balkan teritory was made which weakened Bul- 
garia. Serbia received compensation in Macedonia while a new 
state, Albania, was created. 

Germany and Austria had again backed the losing side, and 
the new situation was Avorse for them than before. Serbia, vic- 
torious and greater in size, with friendship for Russia but none 
for Austria, blocked the Pan-German route to the East. The 
Balkans had settled their own troubles, but Germany and Aus- 
tria felt that the Treaty of Bucharest must be broken. An in 
dependent Serbia was not to be tolerated. 

Germany and Russia 

Notwithstanding the fact that Germany sided with Austria in- 
stead of Russia, and directly interfered with Russian interests 
when those of Austria were involved, we still find her endeavor- 
ing to influence Russian affairs. Russia had also annexed a part 
of the old Kingdom of Poland. Prussian statesmen tried to make 
the Russian government feel that they had a common problem 
in ruling the Poles. 

Furthermore, the two countries had the same autocratic gov- 
ernment. From 1904 to 1907, a series of communications passed 
between Emperor William and Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, 
which were recently made public by the revolutionary Govern- 
ment. At the time when the Russian people were seeking to 
obtain a more liberal government, the German Emperor offered 
his support to the Russian dynasty and sought to draw Russia 
from the alliance with France. It was suggested that Germany 
and Russia annex Denmark. 

Germany and England 

The last and most tragic phase of the period preceding the 
outbreak of the war, was the strong effort on the part of England 
to come to a friendly understanding Avith Germany. In 1912, 
a treaty was negotiated between the two countries. Great Britain 
proposed that they sign the following declaration: "The two 
powers being naturally desirous of securing peace and friend- 



28 University of Texas Bulletin 

ship between them, England declares that she will neither make, 
nor join in, any unprovoked attack upon Germany. Aggres- 
sions upon Germany is not the subject, and forms no part, of 
any treaty, understanding, or combination to which England 
is now a party, nor will she become a party to anything that 
has such an object." Germany refused to sign unless Great 
Britain would agree to remain neutral in any war which might 
break out on the continent. Had England promised to stand 
aside while Russia and France were being crushed, her time 
would have come in the end. Treitschke said : ' ' The last settle- 
ment, the settlement with England, will probably be the length- 
iest and the most difficult." 

In 1914 the two countries seem to have come to definite un- 
derstanding. Two agreements were drawn up. One between 
Germany and England, the other between England and Turkey. 
The terms were not published, but the Bagdad railway ques- 
tion, and difficulties in Africa were settled. The war prevented 
the signing of this agreement. Was Germany serious or was 
this merely another of her many efforts to break the Entente ? 



A Brief History of tJie War 29 

CHAPTER III 

The Austro-Serbian Controversy 

Austrian Hostility toward Serbia 

The Treaty of Bucharest and the success of Serbia was 
intolerable to Austria and Germany. The former Prime Min- 
ister of Italy, Giolitti, has revealed a proposal made by Austria 
to her allies which clearly indicates Austria's purpose to hum- 
ble Serbia. On August 9, 1913, the day before the signing of the 
Treaty of Bucharest, Austria declared her intention of taking 
action against Serbia. She defined this action as defensive, and 
asked whether Germany and Italy would support her. Italy 
replied that this could not be considered defensive. 

Pan-Slavism a Menace to the Dual MonurcJiy 

The Balkan situation had not only become unfavorable to the 
plans of Germany and Austria for the control of the East, but 
it had become a menace to the unity of the Austro-Hungarian 
Empire. Under the rule of the Dual Monarchy are many differ- 
ent races and nationalities. The constitutional system is so ar- 
ranged that the German and Magyar races are enabled to con- 
trol all the others. Those races which thus lack any effective 
voice in the government hope to gain autonomy and control 
of their own affairs, and the success of the Balkan states in 
gaining independence from Turkey made this desire on the part 
of these oppressed peoples all the stronger. Serbia and Rou- 
mania even looked forward to the time when they might incor- 
porate the peoples of their race who are in the Austro-Hunga- 
rian Empire. 

The idea of a "Greater Serbia" was being actively forwarded 
by patriotic societies, which spread the idea of the union of the 
Serbs within the Austro-Hungarian Empire with Serbia. In 
1917 representatives from the Austrian provinces and the Prime 
Minister of Serbia signed an agreement to establish at some fu- 
ture time a new state to be ruled by the King of Serbia and to be 
called the "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes." This 



30 University of Texas Bulletin 

propaganda sought to undermine the Austrian state, and was a 
constant danger to it. Hence Austrian statesmen quite naturally- 
felt that they must take strong measures to suppress such acti- 
vities. On the other hand, the Serbs felt justified in such re- 
volutionary plans, because Austria did not grant her peoples 
self-government. 

Thus, in one sense, Austrian interest in the Balkans was de- 
fensive. It must be remembered that Austria has done a great 
work in the past. She stopped the Turkish invasion of Europe, 
and she gave the peoples she ruled a more stable government 
and a higher civilization than they perhaps would have pos- 
sessed otherwise. However, the time has come when these peo- 
ples have a right to self-government, and the reactionary gov- 
ernment of the Hapsburg dynasty does not wish to grant this. 
The peoples formerly under Turkish rule have obtained inde- 
pendence. The nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 
feel that they may som.e day be equally fortunate. 

For this reason the Dual Monarchy wa« anxious to destroy 
Serbia. Furthermore, such intentions conformed to the Pan- 
German plan, and Germany adopted the policy of her ally. In 
fact, Austria was dependent on the support of Germany to carry 
out her plans. Kussia was the friend of the Slav peoples, and 
particularly of Serbia. Pan-Slavism and Pan-Germanism met 
in the Balkans. Pan-Germanism stands for the domination and 
suppression of weaker nationalities. Pan-Slavism at its best 
means the settlement of the complicated racial problems of South- 
eastern Europe by securing liberty and independence for each 
and every oppressed nationality. 

The Assassination at Serajevo 

On June 28, 1914, the Austrian Crown Prince, Franz Ferdi- 
nand, and his wife, while on an official visit to Serajevo, the 
capital of the province of Bosnia, were killed by Serbs. The 
assassins were subjects of the Dual Monarchy, but members of 
the secret society in Serbia, the Narodna Ohrana, which was 
carrying on Serbian propaganda. 



A Brief History of the War 31 

The Austrian Ultimatum 

The crime was universally condemned, and it was generally 
felt that Austria had a just right to take measures which would 
stop such plots. European statesmen waited until Austria 
should investigate the crime, and any fear of international com- 
plications was lulled to sleep as the days passed. The question 
which confronted Austria was whether she should seek to deal 
adequately with those who committed the crime and seek to pre- 
vent further plots or whether she should regard the offense as 
one committed by the Serbian state. Austria chose the latter 
course, and on July 23 she submitted a note to Serbia which 
startled Europe, because of the extreme conditions which it im- 
posed on Serbia, and because it demanded an answer within 
forty-eight hours. 

Austria demanded that the society, Narodna Ohrana and 
other associations of similar character, should be dissolved. All 
phases of instruction in Serbian schools which tended to promote 
hatred of Austria were to be eliminated. It was demanded that 
Serbia should agree to "accept the collaboration in Serbia of 
representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government for the 
suppression of the subversive movement directed against the 
territorial integrity of the Monarchy"; also "to take judicial 
proceedings against the accessories to the plot of the 28th of June 
who are on Serbian territory; delegates of the Austro-Hun- 
garian Government will take part in the investigations relating 
thereto." 

The essential point was that Austria demanded the right to 
interfere in the internal affairs of the Serbian Government. ' ' The 
demands of that [Austrian] Government are more brutal than 
any ever made upon any civilized state in the history of the 
world, and they can be regarded only as intended to provoke 
war." So said the German paper, Vorwdrts. The Russian Am- 
bassador said that the demands "were absolutely inacceptable by 
any independent state, no matter how small." Efforts were 
made to get the time limit extended, so that mediation between 
Austria and Serbia might be possible. This Austria refused to 
consider. Serbia accepted eight of the ten demands. As to 
"collaboration in, Serbia of representatives of the Austro-Hun- 



32 University of Texas Bulletin 

garian Government," Serbia added this qualification: "as agrees 
with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, 
and with good neighborly relations. ' ' Serbia said that participa- 
tion of Austrian representatives in the trial of Serbian subjects 
would be a violation of the Serbian constitution and laws. Serbia 
further suggested that the matter be referred to The Hague Trib- 
unal or to a conference of representatives of the great Powers. 
Serbia had humbled herself. Austria had obtained practically 
everything that she had asked, and as much as she had a right 
to expect, but two hours after receiving the Serbian reply Aus- 
tria declared war on Serbia. 

Danger of European War 

Austria's contention was that this was a purely local quarrel 
between herself and Serbia. Was this a possible view of the 
matter ? • War with Serbia would disturb the Balkan situation, 
and furthermore, Eussia had interests in the Balkans no less 
than Austria, and would not permit Serbia to lose her inde- 
pendent status. There was every probability that if Austria in- 
sisted on her extreme demands a European war would re- 
sult from her action. Nevertheless, Austria persisted in seeing 
the situation only from her own poiiit of view. This is the charge 
which must be made against Austria. Whether or not Russian 
claims were justifiable, Austria knew that Eussia had vital in- 
terests and would insist on the recognition of such interests. Aus- 
tria pressed her case against Serbia with her eyes open to the 
probability of Eussian intervention. This she has admitted in 
the introduction to her Red Book. 

Germany's Attitude 

It has been said that a conference held at Potsdam, July 5, 
1914, decided that the Serajevo murder should be made a pre- 
text for an effort to crush Serbia. Germany has officially denied 
this. The German Government also insists that it had no pre- 
cise knowledge of the Austrian note beforehand. Did Austria 
risk a war with Eussia without being sure of German support? 
Why did Austria not go to war with Serbia in 1913, as she an- 
nounced to Italy she intended to do? Apparently she had been 



A Brief History of tlie War 3S 

restrained by Germany. The German White Book says: "We 
were perfectly aware that a possible warlike attitude of Austria- 
Hungary against Serbia might bring Russia upon the fiekl and 
that it might, therefore, involve us in a war, in accordance with 
our duty as allies." The German attitude was that "the ques- 
tion at issue was one for settlement between Austria and Serbia 
alone, and that there should be no interference from outside in 
the discussions between these two countries." 

It would seem evident that Austria and Germany intended to 
force the issue against Serbia without regard to the conse- 
quences. The German Secretary of State told the British Am- 
bassador on July 25 that the Austro-Hungarian Government 
wished to give the Serbs a lesson, and that the Dual Monarchy 
meant to take military action. 



34 University of Texas Bulletin 

CHAPTER IV 

Efforts to Avert War and Their Failure 

Russia's Position 

Serbia was undoubtedly influenced by the powers, particu- 
larly Russia, to make a favorable reply. What did Russia de- 
mand? The Russian attitude is shown to be consistent through- 
out the diplomatic negotiation which preceded the declarations 
of war. She insisted that the independence of Serbia must be 
maintained. Sazanof, Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, 
said to the Austrian Ambassador on July 26: "The intention 
which inspired this document [the Austrian note to Serbia] is 
legitimate if you pursued no aim other than the protection of 
your territory against the intrigues of Serbian anarchists; but 
the procedure to which you have had recourse is not defensible." 
He concluded: "Take back your ultimatum, modify its form, 
and I will guarantee you the result." At all times Russia was 
willing to negotiate, but she firmly insisted that Austria had gone 
too far, and that the continuation of her policy meant the reduc- 
tion of Serbia to a position of dependence, which Russia could 
not permit. 

Sir Edward Grey's Proposals 

Sir Edward Grey, the British Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs, was active till the last in his efforts to find a way to 
preserve the peace of Europe. "The high sense of justice of the 
British nation and of British statesmen could not blame the Aus- 
trian Government if the latter defended by the sword what was 
theirs, and cleared up their position with a country whose hos- 
tile policy had forced upon them for years measures so costly as 
to have gravely injured Austrian national prosperity." (Sir E. 
Grey, July 27.) England was thus ready to grant that Austria 
had just grievances against Serbia, 

Furthermore, England refused to take sides in the contro- 
versy. Russia proposed that Great Britain should take a stand 
with France and Russia as the surest means of preserving peace. 



A Brief History of the War 35 

This Sir Edward Grey refused to do. To the end he believed 
that England could accomplish the best results by reserving her 
liberty of action, that is by refusing to commit herself to either 
side. 

Sir Edward Grey proposed that the four Powers not directly 
interested, namely, France, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain, 
should act as mediators. He asked the governments of these three 
countries to instruct their ambassadors to meet him in confer- 
ence at London in an effort to find a way out, while Serbia, Aus- 
tria and Russia should refrain from operations during the con- 
ference. France and Italy accepted. Sazanof said that he was 
endeavoring to negotiate directly with Austria and must await 
a reply from Vienna, but if this proved unfavorable, he would 
accept the plan or any other proposal that would help solve the 
problem. 

Germany's Attitude 

In the meantime Germany was endeavoring to get England 
and France to commit themselves to the idea that the quarrel 
was strictly local and to use their influence to keep Russia out 
of it. In other words, Austria was to have a free hand. When 
this was proposed to France, the French Minister suggested that 
Germany should likewise restrain her ally, Austria. This Ger- 
many refused to do. 

As to Sir Edward Grey's proposal, Germany accepted the gen- 
eral idea of mediation, but prevented any conference from meet- 
ing by refusing to take part in one. As an excuse, she merely 
said that she could not interfere in the affairs of her ally. This 
she thought would be bringing Austria before a court of arbi- 
tration. Sir Edward Grey replied that the conference would 
in no sense be a court but merely an informal disc^S'^ion. In 
discussing the matter with the French Ambassador, the German 
Secretary of State, von Jagow;, was so indefinite in his answers 
that he was asked if he wanted war. As Germany accepted the 
idea of mediation, and claimed to be anxious to preserve peace, 
Sir Edward Grey proposed that she suggest a way by which 
mediation could take place. In reply, all that Germany would 
say was that Russia had no concern in the quarrel between Aus- 
tria and Serbia. 



36 University of Texas Bulletin 

In the meantime Austria refused to discuss the Serbian note 
with Russia. Thus neither Austria nor Germany would make 
any concession or take any action which would clear up the situ- 
ation. They merely insisted that Austria should not be inter- 
fered with by Russia in dealing with Serbia. Did they want war 
with Russia, or did they think that she could be made to back 
down as she had been forced to do when Austria annexed Bosnia 
and Herzegovina? 

Russian Proposals 

In a personal telegram to the Kaiser, the Tsar of Russia pro- 
posed that the Avhole question be referred to The Hague Trib- 
unal. No mention is made of this in the German WJiite Book. 
If this proposal had been accepted, it would doubtless have led 
to peace. 

On July 30 Sazanof made the following proposal: "If Aus- 
tria, recognizing that the Austro-Serbian question has assumed 
the character of a question of European interest, declares her- 
self ready to eliminate from her ultimatum points which violate 
the sovereign rights of Serbia, Russia engages to stop her mili- 
tary preparations," At the suggestion of Sir Edward Grey, this 
proposal was modified to read : * * If Austria consents to stay the 
march of her troops on Serbian territory; and if, recognizing 
that the Austro-Serbian conflict has assumed the character of a 
question of European interest, she admits that the Great Pow- 
ers may examine the satisfaction which Serbia can accord to the 
Austro-Hungarian Government, without injury to her rights as 
a sovereign state and to her independence, Russia undertakes to 
maintain her waiting attitude." Here was a definite formula 
for discussion. 

Austria Becomes Willi7ig to Negotiate 

While Austria was proceeding with her military preparations, 
Russia was doing the same. Apparently this brought Austria to 
her senses. Unable to bluff Russia, she became more concilia- 
tory, and on July 30, the Austro-Hungarian Minister had a 
friendly conference with the Russian Ambassador. It was 
agreed that the Austrian Ambassador at St. Petersburg should 



A Brief History of tJie War 37 

immediately be authorized to discuss "what settlements would 
be compatible with the dignity and prestige for which both em- 
pires had an equal concern." Austria expressed a willingness 
to discuss the grievances against Serbia with the other Powers, 
and even yielded the point upon which Russia had insisted from 
the beginning that "neither an infraction of Serbian sovereign 
rights nor the acquisition of Serbian territory was being con- 
templated by Austria-Hungary." The whole question between 
Russia and Austria was ready for settlement. Why did war 
come? 

Mobilization 

Germany blamed Russia for the outbreak^ of the war, declaring 
that Russian mobilization forced her into war. 

The mobilization of a country means the passing from the 
usual conditions of peace times into a state of preparation for 
war. This implies the assembling of troops, the acquisition of 
supplies, and the preparation of the entire machinery of war. 
In the countries of continental Europe this could be accom- 
plished more quickly than in England or America where uni- 
versal military training does not exist. 

Obviously, the country which can mobilize the most rapidly 
has an advantage over its opponents. Germany has the most 
perfect plans for rapid mobilization. In Russia, where fewer 
railroads exist and distances are much greater, the process is 
much slower. However, Germany has powerful states on both 
sides of her and hence requires greater speed. The German 
plan of campaign has ahvays been based on the idea that Ger- 
many must strike before either France or Russia could be fully 
ready to meet her attack. 

On July 25 Russia ordered the mobilization of thirteen army 
corps to be effective whenever Austria brought armed pressure 
upon Serbia. On July 29 it was decided to send troops to the 
Austrian frontier, as Austria had already gone to war against 
Serbia and was massing troops on the Russian frontier. This 
action was officially communicated to the German Government. 
Austria was informed that the Tsar was merely insisting on his 
rights to have something to say in the Serbian question. 



38 University of Texas Bulletin 

I 
On July 27 the German Secretary of State told the British 

Ambassador that if Russia mobilized against Germany, the latter 
would have to follow suit. When asked what was meant by Rus- 
sian mobilization against Germany, he replied that if Russia 
mobilized in the south,- — namely against Austria — Germany 
would not mobilize. • 

On July 29 a council of war was held at Potsdam, at which 
German statesmen and military leaders apparently made an im- 
portant decision. The German Chancellor rushed back to Ber- 
lin and hastened to see the British Ambassador. He said that if 
England would bind herself to remain neutral, "every assur- 
ance would be given the British Government that the Imperial 
Government [German] aimed at no territorial acquisitions at the 
expense of France should they prove victorious in any war that 
might ensue." However, when questioned, the Chancellor said 
no guarantee wDuld be given to respect French colonies. The 
neutrality of Belgium would be respected, although the treat- 
ment of Belgium would depend on the action of France, but the 
integrity of Belgium would be respected after the war if she had 
not taken sides against Germany. Sir Edward Grey absolutely 
refused this bid for neutrality. 

As a further indication of German intentions, the German 
Ambassador on the same day informed Russia that the German 
Government had decided to mobilize if Russia did not stop her 
military preparations. Sazanof protested that there had been 
no mobilization against Germany ; that Russia had mobilized only 
because Austria had done so. The German military Attache was 
informed by the Russian chief of staff, on his honor, that up to 
that time there had been no mobilization. The German White 
Book says that reports of Russian and French mobilization kept 
coming in and, therefore, Germany did not believe the Russian 
official statement. It must be noted that the German Secretary 
of State had previously said that Russian mobilization in the 
south would not necessitate German mobilization. The German 
attitude had changed. 

France requested Russia to do nothing which would give of- 
fense to Germany. However, Russia was convinced that Ger- 
many would do nothing to restrain Austria. 



A Brief History of the War 39 

It was at this time that Austria began to show a conciliatory 
attitude. On July 29 the German Chancellor said that he had 
asked Austria to state specifically her intentions, and the German 
Secretary also said that he had asked Austria to resume negotia- 
tions with Russia. The German Emperor telegraphed the Tsar 
that he was using every influence to induce Austria to come to 
"a frank and satisfactory understanding with Russia." Ger- 
many has not made public any documents which show this, but 
Austria certainly did become reasonable on July 30. 

On July 31* Russia mobilized. This step was taken because 
Austria ordered a general mobilization on the same day, and 
because it was claimed that Germany had been secretly mobiliz- 
ing against Russia for six days previously. However, the Tsar 
telegraphed the Kaiser : " It is far from us to want war. As long 
as negotiations between Austria and Serbia continue, my troops 
shall take no provocative action." 

On the same day Sir Edward Grey made a last effort to avert 
war. He said that if Germany could put forth any proposal 
which made it certain that Germany and Austria were striving 
for European peace, he would support it ; and that if Russia and 
France refused to support it, "Great Britain would have noth- 
ing more to do with the consequences." Here was Germany's 
chance to have peace with English backing. There is no record 
that she even considered it. 

At midnight, July 31, Germany demanded that Russia sus- 
pend all military preparations by midday, August 1. France 
was asked what would be her attitude if Germany and Russia 
went to war. The reply was that "France would do what her 
interests dictated." 

The Russian interpretation of this ultimatum was that if she 
did not demobilize, Germany meant war. Two hours after the 
twelve-hour limit expired, the Tsar telegraphed that he under- 
stood that Germany would mobilize, but he wished that such 
measures should not mean war, but that negotiations for peace 

♦Germany has endeavored to prove that the mobilization order was 
signed on the 29th or 30th. On the other hand, it is said that this 
change must be attributed to a newspaper agency. See War Cyclopedia, 
Mobilisation Controversy. 



^0 University of Texas Bulletin 

mig-ht continue. That evening at 7:10 Germany declared war 
on Russia. The reason given was that Russia would not de- 
mobilize. Later, in the White Book, it was stated that Russian 
troops had already crossed the German frontier. France issued 
orders for a general mobolization on August 1. On August 3 
Germany declared war on France, charging that France had 
violated German territory. This complaint has been since shown 
to be untrue. 

Thus war broke out in Europe, not because of the quarrel be- 
tween Austria and Serbia, nor because of the quarrel between 
Russia and Austria, These matters had reached a point where 
they could have been settled by negotiation. Austria had given 
Russia the only assurances that Russia demanded. War came 
because Germany took the situation into her ovm hands and 
abruptly demanded that Russia demobilize. 

Even if we conclude that Russian mobilization was ill-advised 
and premature, it is difficult to understand why Germany forced 
the issue at a time when Austria was ready to negotiate, and 
also when England was ready to back Germany if Russia proved 
unreasonable. The German White Book says that Russia wanted 
war. Throughout the polished diplomatic correspondence there 
is repeated evidence to the contrary, whereas there is not one 
document which indicates any positive effort made or suggested 
by Germany that was in the direction of peace. 

The following summary of the efforts to prevent war has 
been only recently made public. It is the statement made by 
the German Ambassador to Great Britain, Prince Lichnowsky: 

"As appears from all official publications, without the facts 
being controverted by our own White Book, which, owing to its 
poverty and gaps, constitutes a grave self-accusation: 

"1. We encouraged Count Berchtold [Austrian Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs] to attack Serbia, although no German 
interest was involved, and the danger of a world war must have 
been known to us — whether we kncAv the text of the ultimatum 
is a question of complete indifference. 

"2. In the days between July 23 and July 30, 1914, when M. 
Sazanof emphatically declared that Russia could not tolerate an 
attack upon Serbia, we rejected the British proposals of media- 



A Brief History of the War 41 

tion, although Serbia, under Russian and British pressure, had 
accepted almost the whole ultimatum, and although an agree- 
ment about the two points in question could easily have been 
reached, and Count Berehtold was even ready to satisfy himself 
with the Serbian reply. 

"3. On July 30, when Count Berehtold wanted to give way, 
we, without Austria having been attacked, replied to Russia's 
mere mobilization by sending an ultimatum to St. Petersburg, 
and on July 31 we declared war on the Russians,* although the 
Czar had pledged his word that as long as negotiations continued 
not a man should march — so that we deliberately destroyed the 
possibility of a peaceful settlement. 

"In view of these indisputable facts, it is not surprising that 
the whole civilized world, outside Germany, attributes to us the 
sole guilt for the world war." 

*This date should be August I. 



42 University , of Texas Bulletin 

CHAPTER V 

How THE War Began 

By August 1 four large nations were in a state of war — Ger- 
many, Austria, Russia, and France. It remained to be seen what 
Great Britain and Italy would do in tlie face of such a situation. 

Great Britain Not Prepared for War 

There were many ways in which Great Britain was unpre- 
pared. Political questions, such as Woman's Suffrage, and Irish 
Home Rule, had produced violent factional differences in Eng- 
land. Northern Ireland was prepared to resist the introduction 
of Home Rule by force of arms, while the rest of the island had 
threatened rebellion if it did not get it. Furthermore, the Em- 
pire seemed loosely bound together. There was no certainty that 
the colonies would support the mother country. The unrest and 
revolutionary disturbances in India might cause serious embar- 
rassment. English sentiment had long been peaceful and against 
war, England was wealthy and prosperous ; had she not lost the 
ability to fight a successful war? Finally, she had no universal 
system of military training. She was not a nation in arms, but 
possessed only a small regular army, which the Kaiser called "a 
contemptible little army." She had only her great fleet. With- 
out doubt Germany had carefully weighed all these factors. 

England Anxious to Preserve Peace 

No diplomat in Europe had worked more earnestly for peace 
than Sir Edward Grey. He refused to allow England to be com- 
promised in any way which might destroy her position as a peace- 
maker. Germany had bid for British neutrality. Did she ex- 
pect that England would remain neutral, even though she had 
made no declaration to that effect ? 

In reply to the German proposal that England promise to re- 
main neutral in case there should be a continental war, Sir Ed- 
ward Grey, while rejecting the proposal, and saying that he 
would support any German proposal for peace that was sincere 



A Brief History of the War 43 

and reasonable, even against France and Rnssia, proposed a fu- 
ture league of peace. If this could be arranged, Germany would 
"be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be pur- 
sued against her or her allies by France, Russia, and ourselves, 
jointly or separately." Not only was England assuring Ger- 
many that she would insist on a reasonable settlement of the 
present quarrel by France and Russia; she went beyond that and 
guaranteed that Germany need fear nothing in the future. 

Again, on August 1, the German Ambassador asked if Eng- 
land would remain neutral if German did not violate Belgian 
neutrality. Sir Edward Grey replied that England's hands 
were still free, but he could not promise complete neutrality re- 
gardless of what might happen. On the other hand France and 
Russia were beseeching England at this very time to declare her- 
self. Manifestly England was still free to act. Her decision to 
go to war came later. 

After the German declaration of war against Russia and 
invasion of Luxemburg, England assured France that if the Ger- 
man fleet came into the British Channel to operate against the 
French coast, the British fleet would give protection. This was 
in accordance with an agreement made some years before, ac- 
cording to which the French fleet was to be concentrated in the 
Mediterranean, while the British fleet guarded the North Sea. 
Sir Edward Grey explained that this in no sense bound England 
to go to war unless Germany took such action. 

England's Crisis 

The European situation was in such a state by August 1 that 
England had to consider on what conditions she might find it 
necessary to enter the struggle. In the first place, could she 
allow the Triple Entente, which was an understanding intended 
to preserve the balance of power, to be broken ? If she stayed out 
and Russia and France were crushed, she would eventually have 
to deal with Germany alone. Public opinion in England was 
much divided as to whether it would be advisable for England 
to enter the war merely to preserve the Entente. 

A more concrete question was what England would do if Ger- 
many violated the neutrality of Belgium. If Germany did not 



44 University of Texas Bulletin 

march on France through Belgium, but limited her attack to the 
short frontier between France and Germany, France had a fair 
chance to defend- herself. Furthermore, German occupation of 
Belgium at once became a menace to England. The neutrality 
of this country had been established because its occupation by 
either Germany, France, or England was a menace to the others. 
Unless England went back on what she had always stood for, she 
could not permit Germany to occupy Belgium without fighting. 

TJie Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg 

Throughout European history the Netherlands have been the 
battleground of Europe. This territory is the key to the control 
of northern Europe. France, in particular, has striven to gain 
control of this fertile and well situated country, England fought 
in the Low Countries against Louis XIV and Napoleon, Be- 
cause of the importance of this land, the Powers decided to create 
an independent state here, which would be strong enough to pre- 
vent aggression by any great Power, but this Kingdom of the 
Netherlands was composed of two separate peoples. In 1830, the 
Belgians separated from the Dutch, and asked the Powers to 
grant them independence. In 1839 it was decided that Belgium 
should be a perpetually independent state. Both Belgian inde- 
pendence and neutrality were guaranteed by the Treaty of Lon- 
don, which was signed by England, France, Prussia, Austria, and 
Russia. This treaty was then intended to prevent French ag- 
gression rather than that of Germany. 

In 1870, on the eve of the Franco-German war, Bismarck 
showed that France had designs on Belgium, and England at 
once asked both belligerents whether or not they would respect 
Belgian neutrality. Both countries agreed to do this. 

These treaties were the surest guarantee that the peace of 
Europe could have. If either England, France, or Germany con- 
quered Belgium, the other two countries would, therefore, be 
threatened. As Sir Edward Grey put it, Belgium was the "main 
rivet" of the peace of Europe. In 1914 it was to Germany's in- 
terest to invade Belgium, but that in no sense changed the valid- 
ity of the treaties w^iich it had formerly been her interest to 
keep. 



A Brief History of tJie War 45 

Luxemburg is a small state, situated between Germany, France 
and Belgium, which was constituted the Grand Duchy of Luxem- 
burg in 1814, and neutralized by the Powers in 1867. Luxem- 
burg had the same legal standing in international law as Bel- 
gium. » 

England Asks That Belgium Neutrality Be Respected 

As in 1870, England asked both France and Germany if they 
intended to respect the neutrality of Belgium. France at once 
replied in the affirmative, Germany declined to commit herself 
on the ground that to do so would disclose her plan of campaign. 
As a matter of fact, such an answer indicated that she was con- 
sidering an invasion of Belgium. 

German Demands upon Belgium 

On August 2 Germany demanded that Belgium grant her 
permission to march through Belgium to attack France. The 
reason for such a request was that the German Government had 
reliable information that France intended to march through Bel- 
gium to attack Germany. Her excuse, let it be noticed, was that 
she knew French intentions, although France had just officially 
declared that she would not do this, and Fiance later proved that 
she was sincere by directing her first campaign toward Alsace- 
Lorraine. Germany had no excuse for her demand. Later she 
admitted that necessity forced her to violate Belgium. In re- 
turn, Germany said that she would guarantee the possessions and 
independence of Belgium after the war. Belgium was asked to 
break a sacred treaty and barter away five guarantors for one. 
Then came the threat. If Belgium showed the least hostility, 
she would be treated as an enemy by Germany. Notwithstand- 
ing all that Belgium had been pledged by the powers of Europe ; 
regardless of how absolutely above reproach her conduct had 
been, Germany proposed that she sell herself and her guarantors 
for a few empty phrases. 

The Belgian reply is a memorable document. After saying 
simply that if France broke her word and invaded Belgium, 
she would be opposed by Belgian armed force, the Belgian Gov- 
ernment went on to say that Belgium had always been ' ' faithful 



46 University of Texas Bulletin 

to her international obligations," and that Germany's proposal 
was a "flagrant violation of international law." "The Belgian 
Government, if they were to accept the proposals submitted to 
them, would sacrifice the honor of the nation and betray their 
duty toward Europe. Conscious of the part which Belgium has 
played for more than eighty years in the civilization of the world, 
they refuse to believe that the independence of Belgium can 
only be preserved at the price of the violation of her neutrality. 
If this hope is disappointed, the Belgian Government are firmly 
resolved to repel, by all the means in their power, every attack 
upon their rights." Thus did brave little Belgium refuse to 
barter away her freedom and her honor. 

On August 4 Germany invaded Belgium. Preserving a 
scrupulously correct attitude till the end, Belgium did not ap- 
peal to her guarantors for help until her territory was actually 
invaded. On August 4 she announced that she would resist the 
invader with all her resources. 

German Efforts to Justify This Violation 

Germany put forth a plea of necessity. The law was no longer 
of advantage to her ; therefore, she would break it. ' ' Gentlemen, 
we are now in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law," 
said the German Chancellor. "Believe me, it is with anguish in 
her heart that Germany has resolved to violate Belgian neutral- 
ity: and personally I feel the most poignant regret. But what 
else is possible? It is a question of life or death for the Empire. 
If the German armies would avoid being caught between ham- 
mer and anvil, they must strike a vigorous blow on the side of 
Prance so as to turn upon Russia." So spoke the German Sec- 
retary of State, von Jagow, to the Belgian Ambassador, in an 
interview which was grudgingly given. "But the French fron- 
tier is of such an extent as to make passage through Belgium 
avoidable," was the answer. Von Jagow said: "But that fron- 
tier is too well fortified." The Belgian then asked: "Have you 
the least thing with which to reproach us? Have we not always, 
for three-quarters of a century, fulfilled toward Germany, as well 
as to all the great powers guarantors, all our duties of neutral- 
ity? Have we not given Germany proof of our loyal friendship? 



A Brief History of the War 47 

With what coin does Germany repay all this? "With making 
Belgium the battlefield of Europe, and we know what devasta- 
tion, what calamity, modern warfare brings in its train." Von 
Jagow could only say: "Germany has nothing with which she 
can reproach Belgium ; the attitude of Belgium has always been 
beyond reproach." 

To insult the noble little country that she had wronged, Ger- 
many later sought to prove, by willfully misreading certain docu- 
ments that were found in Brussels, that Belgium had already 
broken her' neutrality by a military agreement which she had 
made with England. It is enough to say that this unofficial 
agreement was only to be effective when her neutrality was vio- 
lated, and King Albert has stated that these documents were 
forwarded to Germany at the time they were drawn up. The 
Germans, therefore, knew exactly what they would find in 
Brussels. 

. The German plea defeats itself. It was to prevent the very 
necessity which Germany pled that Belgium had been made 
neutral. Germany stood bare before the world for what she was, 
a nation that knows not honor. 

"Had Belgium been merely a small neutral nation, the crime 
would still have been one of. the worst in the history of the mod- 
ern world. The fact that Belgium was an internationalized 
state has made its invasion the master tragedy of the war. For 
Belgium represented what progress the world had made toward 
co-operation. If it could not survive, then no internationalism 
was possible. That is whj^, through these years of horror upon 
horror, the Belgian horror is the fiercest of all. The burning, the 
shooting, the starving, and the robbing of small and inoffensive 
nations is tragic enough. But the German crime in Belgium is 
greater than the sum of Belgium's misery. It is a crime against 
the basis of faith on which the world must build or perish." — 
Walter Lippman. 

Great Britain Enters the War 

The violation of Belgium brought Great Britain into the war. 
England could no more permit Germany to occupy Belgium 
than Germany would have permitted Great Britain to take pos- 



48 University of Texas Bulletin 

session of this territory. Her interests forced such action, but 
there was also the appeal of an innocent people whose inde- 
pendence was threatened, and whose liberty was outraged. This 
was Ruflficient justification for England's decision. It was an 
appeal that swept across the Atlantic. How many Americans can 
say that it is not our duty to right Belgium's wrongs? How- 
ever, America was not pledged to defend Belgium ; England was 
obligated by treaty, and she did not break her word. 

"When the news of the German note to Belgium reached Eng- 
land, Sir Edward Grey at once instructed the British Ambassa- 
dor to inform the German Government that assurances were 
requested, "that the demand would not be proceeded with." The 
German Secretary replied that no Belgian territory would be 
annexed. Finally, when it was known that German troops had 
crossed the frontier. Sir Edward Grey, on August 4, gave the 
German Government till midnight to return a satisfactory 
answer. 

At 7 o'clock that night the British Ambassador at Berlin. Sir 
Edward Groschen, called upon the German Chancellor, Beth- 
mann-Holweg, whom he found "very agitated." He said that 
''the step taken by His Majesty's Government tvas terrible to a 
degree; just for a word — 'neutrality,' a word wJii&h in wartime 
liad so often been disregarded — just for a scrap of paper Great 
Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation who desired 
nothing better than to be friends with her." The British Ambas- 
sador further relates what was said at this interview : "He held 
Great Bj-itain responsible for all the terrible events that might 
happen. I protested strongly against that statement, and said 
that, in the same way as he and Herr von Jagow wished me to 
understand that for strategical reasons it was a matter of life 
and death to Germany to advance through Belgium and violate 
the latter 's neutrality, so I would wish him to understand that 
it was, so to speak, a matter of 'life and death' for the honor of 
Great Britain that she should keep her solemn engagement to do 
her utmost to defend Belgium's neutrality if attacked. That 
solemn compact simply had to be kept, or what confidence could 
anyone have in the engagements given by Great Britain in the 
future." The Chancellor said: "But at what price will that 



A Brief History of tJie War 49 

compact have been kept? Has the British Government lhoui?ht 
of that?" I hinted to His Excellency as plainly as I could that 
"fear of consequences could hardly be regarded as an excuse 
for breaking solemn engagements." There is no need to say 
that ' ' honor, " " solemn compact, " " confidence in engagements, ' ' 
were empty words to German cars. Germany respects one thing 
only — force. 

Italy Strove to Preserve Peace 

Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance, consequently, her 
attitude deserves consideration. When the crisis of 1914 arose, 
Italy made every effort to co-operate with the other Powers to 
preserve peace. From the first, she supported Sir Edward Grey's 
proposals for mediation. The Italian Foreign Minister also 
made an important suggestion on July 28, which was that if 
Serbia would accept the Austrian note completely that Austria 
might be satisfied. Serbia, he thought, might feel that she was 
yielding to the powers and not to Austria. 

Italy Remains Neutral 

As war became more and more certain, both the Entente 
Powers and Germany and Austria became more anxious to 
know what Italy would do. On July 31 the Italian Minister for 
Foreign Affairs, the Marquis di San Giulano, when asked by the 
German Ambassador as to the intentions of his Government, re- 
plied that the war undertaken by Austria was aggressive and 
did not fall within the purely defensive character of the Triple 
Alliance. 

This decision is extremely important. Germany claimed that 
the war was begun by Russia. Italy, the ally of Germany and 
Austria, was bound to support them only if they were attacked. 
Italy refused to help her allies, "because, after examining the 
evidence, she concluded that Germany and Austria were the ag- 
gressors." 

Italy Declares War 

On May 23, 1915, Italy declared war on Austria. The reasons 
for this step were that she desired to obtain Austrian territory 



50 University of Texas Bulletin 

inhabited by Italians; because of the rivalry of Austrian and 
Italian interests in the Adriatic ; because the control of the Med- 
iterranean by the Allies made it to her interest to side with them 
rather than with Austria and G-ermany. 

Other Countries Enter the War 

On August 7, 1914, Montenegro entered the war as the ally 
of Serbia. On August 23 Japan declared war on Germany. She 
still resented previous German treatment, and sent Germany an 
ultimatum similar in tone to one that Germany had formerly 
sent her. Until recently Japan's chief contribution to the war 
consisted of the capture of Tsingtau on Kiao-Chau Bay from the 
Germans, November 14, 1914. She is now participating in the 
Allied expedition into Russia by way of Siberia. 

Bulgaria hesitated for some time, but encouraged by German 
success and persuaded by German offers of territory, she entered 
the war on the German side, October 13, 1915. 

Portugal, long the ally of Great Britain, sided with the Allies, 
March 9, 1916. 

Roumania, urged on by Russia, and anxious to obtain Tran- 
sylvania from Austria, largely inhabited by Roumanians, de- 
clared war on Austria, August 27, 1916. 

Greece long remained neutral in spite of her obligation to aid 
Serbia. The pro-German sympathies of the King were opposed 
by the Premier, Venizelos, who had the support of a large ma- 
jority of the Greek people. The task of Venizelos was made 
more difficult loy the blundering policy of the Allied diplomats, 
who had sought to keep Bulgaria out of the war by offers of 
territory partly at the expense of Greece. Venizelos was dis- 
missed, but set up a provisional government in opposition to the 
King, who was forced to abdicate in 1917, and Greece entered the 
war on the Allied side, July 2, 1917. 

Today, the United States, China, Siam, Brazil, have also 
taken the Allied side. Bolivia, Peru, Uruguay, Argentine, and 
Ecuador have severed diplomatic relations with Germany. 

Such were the steps by which the most terrible and ruthless 
war that man has ever known began. The fate of all that is best 
in civilization hangs .in the balance. Upon the heads of those who 



A Brief History of the War 51 

began it, or refused to avert it, rests the responsibility for the 
untold misery suffered by millions of human beings and for the 
check which human progress has received for a generation to 
come. Not all the right is on one side, perhaps, but from the evi- 
dence which it now public, Germany and her ally must bear the 
guilt for having precipitated the war, and for having made no 
effort to maintain peace, when this could have been so easily 
done had these countries but listened to reason. The story of 
the negotiations that preceded war indicates beyond doubt 
that Germany was the nation which held the fate of the world 
in her hands, and the long fostering of the war idea in Ger- 
many makes it evident that she wanted war. 



52 University of Texas Bulletin 

CHAPTER VI 

The Progress of the War 

Methods of Warfare 

Warfare has undergone remarkable changes since the days of 
the American Civil War. Today no fort can long withstand the 
battering of enormous cannon, firing high explosive shells. The 
new 16-ineh American naval gun discharges a shell which eon- 
tains a charge of powder weighing 900 pounds and is six feet in 
length, and it hurls this terrible projectile twenty-seven miles. 
More remarkable still is the German gun which has shelled Paris 
from a distance of seventy miles. For shorter work the French 
"75" (caliber 75 milimeters, or about three inches), which is a 
rapid-fire cannon, uses a shell that bursts into some 2,000 pieces. 
In a modern battle, great numbers of guns of every description 
are concentrated on both sides, and enormous numbers of shells 
are used in a short time. It is estimated that the French and 
British used 20,000,000 shells during the battle of the Somme. 

Preparatory to an attack, the cannon hurl large quantities of 
metal at the opposing defenses, so that all obstructions are re- 
moved. After such preparation has been made, and all is ready 
for the charge, or "going over the top," the artillery lays down 
a barrage, or "curtain of fire." By careful calculation, all guns 
are trained on a certain line a short distance before the advanc- 
ing troops for their protection while they are attacking the 
enemy, and the falling shells advance with great precision, timed 
to coincide with the rate of the infantry charge. The barrage is 
also used to break up similar attacks of the enemy. 

In the past, battles were over in two or three days at the most, 
and a decision obtained. Now a battle lasts months. The num- 
bers of men engaged are so great that rapid results are impos- 
sible. Furthermore, up to 1918, most of the fighting resolved 
itself into trench warfare. After fighting a campaign in the 
open at the beginning of the war, both sides "dug in." Since 
then, the opposing lines have been defended by complicated sys- 
tem of trenches. Usually there are at least first, second, and 



A Brief History of the War 53 

third line trenches, so that if the most advanced defenses can 
not be held the defense can continue in the next line. These are 
all connected by communication trenches, which continue to the 
rear. Troops moving to or from the front are thus protected 
from the more or less continuous shell fire, which threatens a 
region miles behind the advanced trenches. All provisions, am- 
munition,, and materials must be carried forward through such 
communication trenches, which greatly increases the difficulties 
that attend the supplying of the troops occupying the most ad- 
vanced positions. At intervals, dugouts are constructed under- 
ground. Here the men must sleep and seek protection when sub- 
jected to heavy cannonading. The frequent rains fill these 
trenches with water and mud, adding to the terrible hardships 
which the soldier must undergo. Before the trenches are barb- 
wire entanglements. The area between the advanced trenches is 
commonly called **no man's land," because it is continually 
swept with rifle, machine gun, and artillery fire. After a few 
days* service in the trenches, the intense nervous strain and un- 
sanitary conditions to which men are subjected make it neces- 
sary for them to be relieved by fresh troops, so that they may 
be retired to the rear for recuperation. 

All the ingenuity of man is employed in such warfare. Sap- 
pers dig tunnels under the trenches of the enemy, in which large 
amounts of explosive are placed. The art of camouflage is em- 
ployed to conceal everything that is a mark for the opposing 
guna and airplanes. Cannons, roads, motor trucks, and loopholes 
are disguised by neutral colors and boughs of trees. When a 
great offensive begins, all the artillery starts a bombardment of 
such intensity that the opposing trenches are flattened out. It 
then becomes necessary for the troops to retire to the dugouts and 
wait for the infantry attack that is to follow. Then they emerge 
and try to drive back the greater number of men that the oppos- 
ing side has gathered for the attack. 

The use of poison gas has made warfare more horrible. Va- 
rious gases, which destroy the lungs or burn the skin, are 
discharged in shells or allowed to sweep over the enem^ before 
the wind. For protection against gas, it is necessary to wear 
masks, which completely cover the head and prevent the breath- 
ing of the dangerous fumes. 



54 University of Texas Bulletin 

Another innovation is the "tank." This is a large armored 
gasoline tractor, which can cross any kind of rough ground, even 
the trenches. It breaks through the barbed wire, and flattens 
down all obstructions in its path. It is armed with machine 
guns, and can only be destroyed by artillery fire. The English 
have used "tanks" very extensively. 

Very extensive use is made of aircraft. It is no longer possi- 
ble for an army to conceal its movements behind the lines as was 
formerly the case. Great balloons are anchored behind the lines, 
from which observers are continually watching the movements 
of the enemy. The greatest development has been in the use of 
airplanes. These are of different kinds. Strong, heavy planes 
carry large quantities of bombs to drop behind the enemy 's lines. 
Other planes are used to make observations and to take photo- 
graphs of the enemy's positions. Then the small one-man planes 
seek to destroy the others and to fight those in their class. More 
recently airplanes have been used close to the ground for ma- 
chine gun fire on the troops engaged in battle below. 

Warfare on the sea has been changed by the submarine or 
U-boat. This type of vessel is able to travel under water, but is 
able to observe what is happening above the surface by its peri- 
scope, a long arm extending vertically upward, in which mirrors 
are arranged in such a way that the men in the submarine can 
see any ship that may be near them. The submarine discharges 
the torpedo, a long projectile containing a load of guncotton. 
The torpedo moves on its own power, which is furnished by 
compressed air. It has a steering apparatus and is automatically 
driven by propellers. In fighting the submarine, wire nets, small, 
swift boats, called destroyers, and airplanes, are used. All war- 
ships are now well protected against submarines, which are used 
by Germany to destroy commercial vessels, in the hope of ulti- 
mately starving out her enemies, who must obtain a large part of 
their supplies by water. 

Perhaps the greatest change in warfare consists in the great 
size of armies. The problems of feeding and caring for such 
large concentrations of men are difficult to solve. Special rail- 
way lines have to be constructed behind the lines to facilitate 



A Brief History of tTie War 55 

transportation. Gasoline motor trucks are extensively used, and 
concrete roads are built for the use of such trucks. During the 
entire battle of Verdun, the French army was supplied by trucks, 
which illustrates how extensively this form of transportation 
has been developed. 

Strategy has changed very greatly, because of the great masses 
of men engaged. The battle lines .change very little when the 
armies are of nearly equal strength. Great offensives, which 
result only in the gain of a few square miles, cost terribly in the 
loss of men and material. Thus the war has been one of at- 
trition, or the effort to gradually wear down the man power and 
resources of the enemy. The real strategy consists in killing more 
men on the opposing side than are lost in the attempt. All of- 
fensives are costly and slow. A tremendous concentration of 
artillery and men at a given point yields an almost certain 
advance, but the other side at once calls up equal strength to 
meet such an attack, and as its further progress is stayed, the 
offensive dies out, at least until further elaborate preparations 
are made. 

It would seem that the final victory will go to whichever side 
has the largest number of men and resources left. The nations 
which first break under this exhausting strain will cease to be 
factors in the struggle. This means that every warring nation 
must so organize all its resources of labor, manufacturing, and 
production that every effort is directed solely toward the one 
end of maintaining the largest possible army in the field, that is, 
keeping it properly supplied with food and munitions. In Eng- 
land, France, and Germany, women now do men's work in the 
fields and factories. There must be no waste of effort or food. 
Only the most complete organization of an entire people for war, 
can enable a country to stand up in such a struggle. When the 
economic organization breaks down and the army is poorly 
fed and supplied, that army is already beaten. Russia broke 
because she was unable to stand the awful pressure. She lacked 
the political and economic organization that such a war requires. 
This war will test not merely the morale and ability of armies, 
but of the entire peoples at home upon whose support armies 
must depend. 



56 University of Texas Bulletin 

RutJilessness and Frightfulness 

"When hostilities began, there were still many people in neu- 
tral countries who believed that Germany was justified in going 
to war. This was particularly true in the United States, where 
the general situation was little understood, because the event 
was so astounding that it was beyond comprehension. Even the 
violation of Belgium was not fully understood. However, as 
the. war progressed, the German methods of waging war aroused 
the contempt and indignation of all the civilized world. 

War is always brutal, but as civilization has advanced, efforts 
have been made to confine its bad influence. This tendency 
found expression in the rules for the conduct of warfare drawn 
up by The Hague Conferences in 1899 and 1907. All the nations 
represented agreed to respect these rules whenever they should 
engage in war in the future. Germany was represented at the 
Conferences, but has since disregarded and broken practically 
every regulation then made. 

The evidence is so great, that even though much of it were 
cast aside as of doubtful value, there would still remain enough 
that cannot be questioned to hold Germany up to the eternal 
condemnation of mankind. Without doubt every war develops 
brutality and deadens the better instincts of those who partici- 
pate. There have been offences committed by allied soldiers, 
and perhaps more would have been committed had German ter- 
ritory been occupied, but such offences are and would be wholly 
the deeds of individuals. The shameful charge that can be made 
against Germany is that the outrages of her soldiers represent 
the deliberate policy of her leaders. The German method of 
waging war is to make it purposely as barbarous and frightful 
as possible for the specific purpose of terrifying her enemies. 

Long before the present war, German military writers had 
advocated that war should be waged in as brutal a manner as 
possible. This can be shown by many extracts from the German 
Warbook, intended for the instruction of officers. A quotation 
from the Kaiser is sufficient to show the German spirit. When 
the German troops were departing for China in 1900, at the 
time of the Boxer outbreak, the Emperor made them a farewell 
speech. He advised them in this fashion: "As soon as you 



A Brief History of the War 57 

come to blows with the enemy, he will be beaten. No mercy 
will be shown ! No prisoners will be taken ! As the Huns, under 
King Attila, made a name for themselves, which is still mighty 
in traditions and legends today, may the name of German be 
so fixed in China by your deeds, that no Chinese shall ever 
again dare to look a German askance . . . Open the way for 
Kultur once for all." German troops have justified their 
Kaiser's confidence. Today the world calls them "Huns." 
Henceforth it will be sufficient to call them Germans. 

In 1915 the Germans introduced the use of poison gas, "a 
method of warfare up to now never employed by nations suf- 
ficiently civilized to consider themselves bound by international 
agreements. ' ' In self-defence the allies were forced to adopt the 
new weapon. The Hague rules provide that arms and projec- 
tiles "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering should not be 
used. ' ' 

Under orders, German troops 'have killed the wounded. ' ' After 
today no more prisoners shall be taken. All prisoners are to 
be killed. Wounded, with or without arms, are to be killed. 
Even prisoners already grouped in convoys are to be killed. Let 
not a single living enemy remain behind us." [Order given 
August 26, 1914, by General Strenger of the 58th Brigade; 
testified to by numerous witnesses.] "It is forbidden .... to 
kill, or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms and 
having no means of self-def epse, gives himself up as a prisoner ; 
to declare that no quarter will be given . . ," saj^s The Hague 
rule.* 

If there is any rule of civilized warfare that deserves con- 
sideration, it is that which declares that a distinction shall be 
made between combatants and non-combatants. The civilian 
population should not be made to endure the horrors of war. As 
The Hague Convention phrased it : " Family honors and rights, 
the lives of persons and private property, as well as religioua 
convictions and practices must be respected." It is impossible 
in a short space to describe the systematic f rightfulness of the 
treatment of the civilian population of Belgium and Northern 
France and of other territory occupied by the German military 
forces. 



♦This does not mean that Germany does not continue to take prisoners. 



58 University of Texas Bulletin 

The German justification for their conduct is that civilians 
fired upon their tropps. The evidence is overwhelming to show 
that they pursued a deliberate policy of terrorization in Belgium. 
Murder and massacre marked the progress of the German armies. 
Sovoral thousand civilians were killed, including women and 
children, that the Belgians might learn to properly fear their 
masters. 

As an example, the following proclamation may be quoted: 
"To the people of Liege: 

' ' The population of Ardenne, after making a display of peace- 
ful intentions to ©ur troops, attacked them in a most treach- 
erous manner. With my authorization, the General commanding 
these troops has reduced the town to ashes and has had 110 per- 
sons shot. 

"I bring this fact to the knowledge of the people of Liege in 
order that they may know what fate to expect should they adopt 
a similar attitude. 

"Liege, 22nd August, 1914. 

"General von Biilow." 

To quote from the diary of a German soldier: "On the night 
of August 18-19, the village of Saint-Maurice was punished for 
having fired on German soldiers, by being burnt to the ground 
by the German troops (two regiments, the 12th Landwehr, and 
the 17th). The village w^as surrounded, men placed about a 
yard from each other so that no one could get out. Then the 
Uhlans set fire to it. house by house. Neither man, woman, nor 
child could escape ; only the greater part of the livestock we 
carried ofl?, as that could be used. Anyone who ventured to come 
out was shot down. All the inhabitants left in the village were 
burnt with the houses." Munro, Sellery, and Krey, German 
War Practices, p. 28. 

Belgian towns were looted and destroyed. But in addition to 
what was deliberately stolen by pillage, heavy fines were im- 
posed on individual towns and upon Belgium as a whole. By 
November, 1916, $10,000,000 a month w^as exacted. Probably 
a billion dollars has been taken from Belgium. In addi- 
tion Belgium was systematically robbed of its foodstuffs, raw 
materials, machinery, and anything which was useful to Ger- 



A Brief History of the War 59 

many. To keep the Belgian people from starving to death, Eng- 
land, France, and America have sent food, which was distrib- 
uted by the Commission for Relief in Belgium, directed by Mr. 
H. C. Hoover, who later became United States Food Administra- 
tor. 

Tens of thousands of Belgians and French were deported 
from their homes to work in Germany. Women, boys, and girls, 
as well as men, were put in German munition factories. Homes 
were broken up; children separated from their parents; wives 
from their husbands ; and no one knew whither his relatives had 
been taken. The United States protested against such prac- 
tices, as did oth'er neutrals, but it was continued. "They 
[the Germans] haVe dealt a mortal blow to any prospect they 
may ever have had of being tolerated by the population of Flan- 
ders [which they were seeking to alienate from the French 
speaking Belgium] ; in tearing away from nearly every humble 
home in the land a husband arid a father or a son and brother, 
they have lighted a fire of hatred that will never go out; they 
have brought home to every heart in the land, in a way that 
will impress its horror indelibly on the memory of three gen- 
erations, a realization of what German methods mean — not, as 
with the early atrocities, in heat of passion and the first lust of 
war, but by one of those deeds that make one despair of the fu- 
ture of the human race, a deed coldly planned, studiously ma- 
tured, and systematically executed, a deed so cruel that German 
soldiers are said to have wept in its execution and so monstrous 
that even German soldiers are now said to be ashamed. ' ' — Brand 
Wliitlock, U. S. Minister to Belgium. 

Germany has carried her frightfulness to the seas, and to un- 
defended towns and cities behind the lines. Her submarines 
have sunk ships of all nations without warning. In commem- 
oration of the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, a medal 
was struck in Germany. However, the date upon the medal is 
May 5, showing that it was made before the tragedy occurred. 
Germany celebrated this disaster. Defenseless towns on the 
English coast have been bombarded. It is further the deliberate 
German policy to send aircraft across the lines into England, 
France, and Italy for the purpose of dropping explosives on 



60 University of Texas Bulletin 

sleeping cities. On one occasion, 97 people were killed and 437 
injured by a single raid upon London. Notwithstanding the 
hatred which such outrages aroused, it was long before British 
sentiment would permit retaliation. 

This by no means completes the list of ' ' frightful ' ' practices 
which Germany has employed. She has driven helpless civilians, 
women, and children, before her troops into battle to prevent the 
opposing side from firing on her advancing soldiers. Such meth- 
ods have given her no military advantage, they have rather in- 
censed the world, and stirred the peoples fighting against Ger- 
many to greater efforts to crush the militarism that is such a 
curse to civilization. Worst of all, the armies fighting Germany 
have been forced to adopt brutal methods in self-defense. Ger- 
many has turned the great nations of the world against her by 
such practices. Germany will reap a bitter harvest of hatred 
and contempt that will require more than one generation to wipe 
out. 

Summary of the Military Progress of the War 

Campaigns of 1914 

Too little exact information is yet available to give even a 
brief treatment of the military events of the war. It is pos- 
sible only to give the main characteristics of the progress of the 
war on the different fronts and the results so far as they are 
now known. ' 

The German military plans represent a generation and more 
of careful study by experts. Nowhere has the study of war been 
carried on with such thoroughness. It was Germany's original 
intention to take full advantage of her own ability to mobilize 
quickly, and crush France before Russia could get her un wieldly 
masses of men into action. With France defeated, the entire 
German strength could be directed against Russia. This plan 
Germany was unable to carry out. 

Instead of directing her main attack against the French 
frontier, the German staff decided to march through Belgium. 
This was because France was least protected on her Belgian 
frontier, and also because the greater numerical strength of the 
German armies would have more room for maneuvers in Belgium 
and Northern France. 



A Brief History of the War 61 

Time was precious to the German troops. On August 4 they 
entered Belgium, where they first had to take the fortified city 
of Liege. After a brave resistance, the Belgians had to retire 
because the great German siege guns completely demolished the 
forts, which up to that time were considered impregnable. The 
Belgians then tried to delay the German advance as much as 
possible, in the hope that the French and English could come to 
their assistance in time to prevent the Germans from conquer- 
ing all Belgium. It took the Germans sixteen days to reach 
the French frontier, which gave France time to prepare for her 
defense. Brave little Belgium had done all that she could to 
save Europe. 

In the meantime, France had struck for Alsace and Lorraine, 
but after a few preliminary successes, the German armies gath- 
ered in strength and forced the French back, and by August 
25 the offensive had to be abandoned. 

The Germans advanced in seven armies, two of which were on 
the Eastern frontier, the other five going through Belgium and 
Luxemburg. The French and English first opposed them in 
Belgium, but had to fall back before greater strength. The 
English expeditionary force was small compared to the num- 
bers engaged, but its famous retreat from Mons, where it first 
came in contact with the Germans aroused great interest. The 
English under Sir John French were placed in a perilous po- 
sition by the retreat of the French army on their right. For 
several days they strove to extricate themselves from the pres- 
sure of the heavy German right wing. Furthermore the Kaiser 
had given orders to his men to annihilate this "contemptible 
little army." 

As the allies retreated before them the Germans became over 
confident. They felt that nothing could stop their advance on 
Paris. However, the plan of General Joffre was to retreat until 
his armies occupied a previously determined line where they 
could best face the enemy. This was the line of the river Marne. 
On the French right was the fortified town of Verdun, and on 
their left Paris. Thus the Germans had to abandon their plan of 
outflanking the French and rolling their armies together to 
crush them. Here Joffre gave orders to stand and fight. 



62 University of Texas Bulletin 

The battle of the Marne lasted from September 6 to 10. 
The rapidly moving German right wing under von Kluck was 
unable to stop and attack Paris, and consequently turned to the 
East, but this forced it to disregard a new army which Joffre 
had been forming, just out of Paris under Manoury. This 
army at once attacked von Kluck in the rear, when he was also 
engaged with the English. He was forced to turn back, but 
after a hard fight was finally compelled to retire northward. 
This threw the other German armies to the East out of line. 
The Germans attacked heavily in the center of the French lines, 
where the army of General Foch bore the brunt of the battle. 
It was at this time that he sent his famous message to his chief. 
"My left has been forced back, my right is routed. I shall attack 
with my center." Foch finally found a break in the German 
lines, and by driving in a wedge .with all the force he could 
muster, caused the retreat of the whole German line. The Ger- 
mans were compelled to fall back to positions along the line of 
the river Aisne. They had been beaten, although they had ex- 
tricated themselves from a bad situation very cleverly. How- 
ever, the German invasion of France was stayed, and the in- 
vader thrown back. The result was of incalculable consequence 
for the future. 

After striving to push the Germans further back, both sides 
began to construct defenses, and to extend their lines to the sea. 
The Germans made tremendous efforts to force their way down 
the coast, but were prevented in the battle of Flanders, the first 
phase of which was the battle of the Yser, lasting till about 
October 18, and the other the battle of Ypres, which ended about 
November 11. Up to 1918 the Western front remained almost 
the same bending slightly one way or the other, as both sides 
have launched great offensives. 

The Russian campaign in the East developed with sur- 
prising rapidity. One part of the Russian offensive was launched 
against East Prussia. This was thrown back by von Hin- 
denburg, who had made a lifetime study of the best way to 
defend this region. The Russians were badly routed in the 
battle of Tannenburg, August 25 to September 1. Three German 
offensives against Warsaw failed, and a German army narrowly 



A Brief History of the War 63 

escaped disaster at Lodz, (November 19 to December 3.) To the 
South, the Russians successfully invaded Galicia, and threat- 
ened Hungary. Serbia took advantage of the Austrians, who 
found it necessary to use all their strength against the Russian 
advance, and drove the invaders from their country. 

In the meantime, German colonies were being conquered by 
England, this task being entrusted chiefly to colonials. A small 
revolution in South Africa was put down easily, owing to the loy- 
alty of the Boers. Turkey joined Germany, but failed to make 
any progress against Russia or Egypt. A revolution against Turk- 
ish rule in Arabia resulted in the foundation of an independent 
state, destroying any possibility of all Mohammedans rising and 
declaring a "Holy War" under Turkish leadership. On the 
sea, the English fleet completely swept away all German ship- 
ping, although the German raider Emden did much damage be- 
fore being finally captured. 

Campaign of 1915 

The Allies failed to realize the need for great preparation in 
artillery and munitions. The result was that they endeavored 
to carry out offensives against the German defenses, which 
proved disastrous because of lack of guns and shells. An Allied 
offensive in Champaigne failed in March and April, also a sec- 
ond offensive in the late summer. However, the allies were able 
to hold the Western line. The greater disaster was the ill-fated 
British attempt to force the Dardanelles; the landing of troops 
on Gallipoli peninsula in an effort to open the way to Constan- 
tinople was attended with great loss to the allies. This fail- 
ure had great influence on the Balkan states who had not yet 
taken sides, and also on the eventual withdrawal of Russia from 
the war. 

A Russian campaign in East Prussia was completely crushed 
by von Hindenburg in the battle of the Mazurian Lakes (Feb. 
12) with great loss to the Russians. An offensive by combined 
Austrian and German forces resulted in the conquest of Poland, 
and the recovery of Galicia. The Russian losses were enormous. 
Russian armies were too poorly equipped to -withstand the Ger- 
mans, who were completely victorious in their campaign. 



64 University of Texas Bulletin 

Bulgaria joined the Teutonic Allies, and aided the Austrians 
and Germans to crush Serbia. The landing of an Allied force at 
Salonica was timely, in that it prevented the Greek king from 
joining the Central Powers. The road from Berlin to Constan- 
tinople was now cleared for the Germans, and relations were 
established with Turkey. In the East, the Allies had suffered 
overwhelming reverses. 

The most encouraging event of the year for the Allies was the 
entrance of Italy into the war. England realized the need of 
a great production of munitions, and Lloyd-George was placed 
in control of production. The Allies had found that modern 
warfare required tremendous preparation, for during the year 
Germany had gained great advantages because of the superiority 
which she had in all matters of military equipment. 

Campaign of 1916 

Germany had been making still greater preparations, and in 
iFebruary she launched a great offensive against Verdun. Intense 
fighting lasted till June, when the Germans realized that they 
bad failed. In the autumn, the French recovered all the ground 
which the Germans had been able to win during the offensive. 
TJ'he German losses are estimated to have been half a million 
men. The German concentration of guns was the heaviest which 
the war had known up to this time. 

To relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun, the English 
began an offensive on the Somme. The Germans were driven 
back on a twenty mile front for a distance of. nine miles. The 
Allies failed to break through the German line, as they hoped 
to do, but they inflicted great losses on the enemy, although 
their own losses were estimated to have been 800,000. The Allies 
had made up their previous deficiency in artillery, and had 
learned much more about the methods of modern fighting. 

On the Eastern front the Russians were able to carry out a 
successful offensive, while the Germans were busily engaged in 
the West, and the German lines were pushed back by the Rus- 
sians, who also gained considerable territory from the Turks in 
Armenia. Roumania was encouraged by the Allied successes, and 
entered the war in the hope of getting possession of Transyl- 
vania. An invasion of this province was a failure, because the 



A Brief History of the War 65 

Germans united with the Austrians, and not only drove the 
Roumanians out of Transylvania but conquered most of Rou- 
mania itself, getting control of the wheat country. The Central 
Powers now had most of the Balkans in their possession. The 
Allied army still held its position North of Salonica, but was 
unable to carry out any decisive operations. 

In far away Mesopotamia, a small English force, which was 
advancing toward Bagdad, was surrounded. Efforts to relieve 
it failed, and it capitulated to the Turks. This event was a se- 
vere blow to English prestige among the Oriental peoples. 

In Italy, the Austrian offensive, which began in the spring, 
was weakened by the necessity of Austria turning her strength 
toward Russia. The Italians then advanced, took Gorizia, and 
freed Italian territory from the Austrians, 

On May 31, the largest naval battle of the war took place in 
the North Sea. The German High Seas fleet came out, and was 
engaged by the British cruisers until the British High Seas fleet 
appeared on the scene. The German fleet took advantage of the 
fog to make its escape. The battle was thus in no sense decisive. 
The German war office at first reported this as a great German 
victory. In reality it showed that England was still supreme on 
the seas. 

On the whole, the Allies had the best of 1916. They had de- 
feated Germany on the Somme, at Verdun, in Italy, while the 
Russians had recovered from their defeats of the previous year. 
The only spn'nus reverses were the loss of Roumania, and the 
disaster in Mesopotamia. 

Campaign of 1917 

■ The tightening of the blockade by the Allies led Germany 
to inaugurate a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in an 
effort to starve out her enemies by destroying as many ships 
as possible. Immediate results were promised, but the Allies 
perfected methods of fighting the submarine, and directed their 
attention to the building of ships to make good their losses. The 
result of this German policy was to bring the United States and 
other smaller states into the war. This submarine warfare is 
still going on, but the Allies are not yet in danger of being de- 
prived of necessary supplies. 



66 University of Texas Bulletin 

The United States at once undertook to raise an army of sev- 
eral million men and to supply the Allies with food and supplies. 
The draft law was passed, and the training of the first part of 
this army was soon under way. By the end of the year a large 
American force was already in France under General Pershing. 
On September 1, 1918, this force was officially stated to be one 
and a half million strong, and extensive preparations had 
been made for the manufacture of war supplies and for the 
building of ships. To transform a peaceful nation into a nation 
at war is a tremendous undertaking, and effective results will 
not be obtained for at least another year. However, America, 
has been able to profit by England's experience, and the full 
weight of America's resources will be in the end the decisive 
factor. 

The results of the battle of the Somme were revealed in the 
early part of 1917, when the Germans retreated on a front of 
fifty miles to the famous ' ' Hindenburg line. ' ' The English suc- 
ceeded in getting possession of Arras, and by hard fighting they 
also gained possession of the high ground along the line to the 
northwest of this town. Late in the autumn, a surprise of- 
fensive was undertaken toward Cambrai; this offensive began 
without artillery preparation, the English depending on a large 
number of tanks to remove obstructions. Part of the gains were 
last as a result of a German counter-offensive. 

In the East, the British succeeded in capturing Bagdad, while 
another expedition from Egypt marched into Palestine and took 
Jerusalem from the Turks on December 9. 

However, all Allied successes were more than counterl)alanced 
by the collapse of Russia. The inefficient manner in which the 
Russian autocratic Government handled the war had irritated 
the people, who were anxious to have a more liberal government. 
The discovery that certain members of the Government were se- 
eretely negotiating with Germany for a separate peace precipi- 
tated a revolution, in which the soldiers participated. The Tsar 
abdicated March 15. A provisional government was established, 
and wa^ for a time left in the hands of the moderate party, or 
Constitutional Democrats. However, this government found itself 
paralyzed by the activities of the radicals, who sought to make 



A Brief History of the War 67 

the revolution social as well as political. The Workin arm en's and 
Soldiers' Delegates formed a council which proclaimed itself the 
real head of the revolution. The result was the demoralization 
of all effective government as well as of all discipline in the army. 
The Germans took advantage of the situation to still further 
increase the confusion, and by November, the extreme radicals, 
the Bolsheviki, came into power. Their program was to estab- 
lish a republic controlled by the poor people, by which the large 
estates were to be handed over to the peasants, and to conclude 
peace with Germany. On December 15 a truce was concluded 
with Germany, which provided for negotiations, and a peace con- 
ference took place at Brest-Litovsk. 

This situation in Russia permitted the Central Powers to re- 
lease troops on the Eastern front for use elsewhere. An offen- 
sive was begun against the Italians in October. The Italians 
were entirely unable to check the German advance. Discontent 
and disorder in the army fomented mainly by German intrigue, 
made German success more complete, and the Italian armies 
were pushed back into Italy. The offensive was halted finally 
by the aid of French and English troops. 

Thus the results of 1917 were not favorable to the Allies. 
Up to this time, Russia had prevented Germany and Austria 
from directing their complete attention to their enemies in the 
"West. Now that Russia was no longer a factor, Germany and 
Austria could obtain food supplies from Russia, and they could 
also turn the full force of their strength to the Italian and West- 
ern fronts. 

Campaign of 1918 

On March 21, Germany, after great, preparations launched a 
great offensive against the Allied line in Northern France. Re- 
alizing that the United States would soon begin to make her 
strength felt, Germany sought to strike a decisive blow, and if 
possible so cripple the English and the French that they would 
cease to be effective factors in the war. The first objective of 
the German drive was the town of Amiens, which is an important 
base of supplies for the British army. The attack began at the 
place where the English and French armies joined each other. 



68 University of Texas Bulletin 

The Allies were gradually forced back in this greatest offensive 
of the war. They finally made a stand a short distance from 
Amiens, where they held. However, the Germans had recovered 
practically all of the ground lost in the battle of the Somme and 
the Hindenburg retreat. The greatest depth of German advance 
was nearly fifty miles. The Allied line was not broken, and the 
effort to drive a wedge between the French and English was a 
failure. Had the Germans succeeded in breaking through they 
would have rolled the English armies back toward the Channel. 
The first effort having been slowed up, the Germans began 
another offensive further West. They attacked the English be- 
tween Arras and Ypres. This offensive failed to make an equal 
advance. On May 28 the Germans swept over the Chemin des 
Dames and the Aisne river, took Soissons the next day and were 
not stopped until they had reached the Marne river. They had 
thus driven two ugly salients into the Allied line, threatening 
important lines of communication, as well as Paris and the 
Channel ports. On June 9 an important offensive began between 
the two salients, but was soon checked by French counter at- 
tacks. On June 15 Austria launched an offensive which failed 
to break down Italian resistance. The Allied resistance was 
stiffening, and three days after the beginning of a new German 
offensive to enlarge the Marne salient on July 15, the Allies 
began the counter offensive which wiped out the Marne salient. 
This was followed August 9 by a forward movement of the 
Allies in the Picardy salient. American numbers have given 
the Allies the initiative. 

The Italian disaster and the German offensive in March have 
had one good result in that the Allied armies are now controlled 
by one man, General Foch, who is commander of the armies of 
all the countries fighting, not only in France but also in Italy. 
What has given Germany a great advantage throughout the en- 
tire war, has been the fact that she has held a central position, 
which has enabled her to shift troops from one front to the 
other as needed, and because she has consistently followed the 
plans of her general staff. There has been no waste effort. The 
Allies have in no sense worked together. Each country has fol- 



A Brief History of the War 69 

lowed its own plans, and sought to obtain its immediate ends. 
Now an Inter- Allied War Council and one supreme commander 
of all military forces will insure a unity of action that has never 
before been realized. As a result of this policy, American troops 
are to be brigaded with French and English troops, so that they 
may more quickly gain military experience. American men and 
resources have counter-balanced the gain of the Central Powers 
resulting from the elimination of Eussia. 

In conclusion it may be said, that although Germany has been 
fighting a great many countries, she has had the advantage of 
fighting them in stages. She had expected to be able to defeat 
France and then Russia, France and Russia bore the brunt 
of the fighting until England could raise, train, and provide for 
a large army. The elimination of Russia now places Germany 
and Austria with their other allies on an equality of strength 
with France, England, and Italy. In the meantime, the United 
States is going through the slow stages that delayed England's 
full participation in the war. Because Germany is still as strong 
as the Allied forces, it is of supreme importance that America 
make her strength felt as soon as possible. America must and 
will give the Allies the increased strength needed to win a final 
victory. 



70 University of Texas Bulletin 

CHAPTER VII 

How THE United States Entered the War 

American Neutrality 

If ever a nation went to war calmly, deliberately, and after 
careful consideration of the evidence, America is that nation. 
For three and a half years we struggled to preserve our neutral- 
ity, and when at last the enlightened public opinion of this 
great Republic decided to enter the war, Germany jvas con- 
victed by the greatest court, which ever sat in judgment upon 
another nation. 

The American people were long confused by the various claims 
advanced by different governments. Foreign-born and foreign- 
descended citizens quite naturally sided with the countries from 
which they had sprung. What was more natural in the early 
days of our neutrality? There unfortunately existed an un- 
friendly attitude toward England, for although we have for- 
gotten the Civil War, textbooks in American history continue 
to misrepresent the American Revolution. On the other hand, 
we had great admiration and respect for Germany. France 
quickly enlisted our sympathy, and we recalled the aid of Lafay- 
ette to our struggling country. Our interest was aroused by 
the struggle of the French people to preserve their civilization 
from a ruthless invader. But as we favored one side or the 
other and for different reasons, we had no thought of entering 
the war. 

It was to such a confused national state of mind that President 
Wilson issued his proclamation of neutrality. "Every man who 
really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neu- 
trality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness, and 
friendliness. to all concerned." Such openmindedness Was fur- 
ther advised so that we might play the role of mediator between 
the warring nations at the close of the conflict. President Wil- 
son's early speeches made much of this possibility. 

Neutrality seemed to be in complete accord with our history. 



A Brief History of the War 71 

In the days when our nation was weak, it had necessarily avoided 
being drawn into European affairs. As our republic grew 
stronger, it had formulated the Monroe Doctrine. It pledged 
itself to defend the American continents from European aggres- 
sion, but in doing so it was m-ade clear that the United States 
would not intervene in the policies of the Old World. We as- 
sumed no responsibility for our participation in the Algeciras 
Conference in 1906. America, through her representatives, 
agreed to observe the rules of The Hague Conventions, but it 
was specifically stated that she was not bound to enforce their 
observance upon other states. Consistently the United States 
had held itself aloof from everything which was not strictly 
American. 

Likewise we were a nation that had desired to promote the 
peace of the world. America had taken an active part in the 
efforts to establish an International Court of Arbitration. We 
further emphasized our sincereity in this action by concluding 
arbitration treaties with some thirty different countries, by 
which all disputes with such peoples were to be settled by peace- 
ful investigation and discussion, rather than by war. 

Certainly, the United States was not to be easily persuaded 
that what seemed to be a European war demanded our participa- 
tion. Nevertheless, there was one phase of national interest 
which was hnmediately affected by the war. We had a great 
•ommerce, and had always stood for the freedom of the seas. 
In 1909, we had been actively interested in the drawing up of 
the declaration of London, which was an effort to draw up an 
international code of law governing the use of the seas. Al- 
though Sir Edward Grey had called the Conference, the Eng- 
lish Parliament refused to ratify what it had formulated, be- 
cause Germany would not agree to a similar limitation of land 
powers. This belief in the freedom of the seas has been a prin- 
ciple which America has consistently advocated, and disregard 
of our rights as we conceived them was sure to call forth our 
protest. 

The British government sought to put restrictions on trade 
with Germany. A blockade is legal. Great Britain had recog- 
nized the legitimacy of the blockade of the South during the 



72 University of Texas Bulletin 

Civil War, England did not immediately declare a blockade, 
and our trade was subjected to annoying restrictions. An effort 
was made to get- England to agree to the Declaration of London, 
but this she could not do, for she felt that she must turn her navy 
to its greatest possible use against Germany. Considerable 
irritation was produced by British interference with what we re- 
garded as our rights, but in all these controversies, there was 
no question of destruction or loss of property. England was 
ready to give compensation for all losses to trade, and further- 
more by the terms of the arbitration treaty between the two na- 
tions, all matters were sure to be ultimately adjusted. Further- 
more, today as a belligerent we are co-operating in all measures 
to which we formerly objected as a neutral. 

Our dispute with Germany concerning the freedom of the 
seas was of a more serious nature. Germany objected to the 
sale of munitions to the Allies by American firms. This she 
could not do legally or consistently, because it had always been 
her own practice to sell munitions to peoples at war when she 
was neutral. Every neutral has that right, otherwise the result 
of a war would depend upon the store of cannon and muni- 
tions which a nation could accumulate and not upon what it 
had the wealth to purchase. Germany sunk ships and justified 
such action by saying that they were carrying munitions to her 
enemies. This was a violation of our rights on the seas, unless 
Germany could establish an effective blockade. 

Germany sought to establish such a blockade of the Allied 
countries. On February 4, 1915, the German Government de- 
creed that there should exist a war zone in which submarines 
would operate. Her blockade necessarily had to be made effect- 
ive by the use of the submarine. International law did not pro- 
vide for the submarine, which introduced entirely new questions. 
The submarine necessarily must destroy the ship it attacks. It 
cannot apply the principle of "visit and search" to determine 
whether or not the ship it holds up carries contraband goods or 
has a forbidden destination. It cannot place the occupants of 
the ship in a place of safety before destroying it. Thus the sub- 
marine blockade meant a loss of life, a consequence which had not 
followed in previous blockades. Germany argued that the sub- 



A Brief History of the War 73 

■larine was a new element that intern ntional law must consider, 
and as usual she pled the law of necessity. 

The American Government did not cease to protest against 
the sinkinar of merchant ships by submarines. It contended 
that Americans had the right to travel on the high seas and 
that Germany had no right to forbid them, or to place them in 
danger or even kill them for exercising their right. In the sec- 
ond note President Wilson said, "the Government of the United 
States is contending for something much greater than mere 
rights of property, or privileges of commerce. It is contend- 
ing for nothing less high and sacred than the rights of. hu- 
manity. ' ' 

A crisis came with the sinking of the Sussex with Americans 
on board, March 26, 1916. At first the German Government 
aought to evade the issue by pretending that it had sunk another 
ship than the Sussex. Secretary Lansing finally made this state- 
ment: "Unless the Imperial Government should now immedi- 
ately declare and etifect an abandonment of its present methods 
of submarine warfare, against passenger and freight carrying 
vessels, the Government of the United States can have no choice 
but to sever diplomatic relations with the German Empire al- 
together." On May 4, 1916, the German Government agreed not 
to sink vessels "without warning, and without saving human 
lives unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance." 
However, she added this condition, namely, that the United 
States should demand that England observe the rules of inter- 
national law as these had been recognized before the war. The 
United States refused to admit that respect for the rights of 
American citizens by Germany should depend upon the conduct 
of other nations. 

The submarine question was not the only evidence of .bad 
faith on the part of Germany toward the United States. German 
agents in this country sought to stir up trouble for us at home 
and abroad. The least offensive of these was Dr. Dernburg 
who directed the German propaganda in this country, but left 
after the storm of indignation which he aroused by defending 
the sinking of the Lusitania. The Austrian Ambassador to the 
United States, Dr. Dumba, was found guilty of endeavoring to 
disturb steel and munitions factories. When a letter was seized 



74 University of Texas Bulletin 

in England which made his guilt certain, Austria was asked to 
recall hira. 

In April, 1916, detectives in New York raided the offices of 
Wolf von Igel, who was attached to the German Embassy in 
this country. They found papers proving the direct connection 
of the official representatives of the German Government in this 
country with various plots to destroy merchant ships, to foment 
rebellion in Ireland, to cause ill feeling against the United 
States in Mexico, to buy up lecturers and newspapers for the 
spreading of the German propaganda, to finance a bureau for 
stirring up labor troubles in munitions plants. Count von Bern- 
storff, German Ambassador to the United States, asked the Ger- 
man Government for $50,000 with which he proposed to influ- 
ence Congress. Such was the net of intrigue by which the Ger- 
man representatives in Am.erica sought to aid their Government 
by illegal and disrespectful means. 

As the war progressed in Europe, sentiment in the United 
States underwent a change. The violation of Belgian neutral- 
ity was a shock, but there were those among us who even claimed 
that this was legally justifiable. Then came the stories of the 
atrocities. At first, Americans could not believe that such bar- 
barities could be committed by a civilized people, but as the evi- 
dence piled up through the Bryce Report and statements of 
Americans who came from Belgium, all our doubts were shat- 
tered and Germau methods of waging war were utterly con- 
demned. We came to understand better what Germany stood 
for and what the consequences of a German victory would mean 
for the civilized world. We saw that Germany had wanted war 
and that she had precipitated that struggle in 1914. German, 
militarism and German autocracy were so contrary to American 
ideals, that America became convinced that the world would one 
day be too small to contain both. 

President Wilson was already engaged in the preparation of 
a peace note asking the nations at war to define their aims, when 
Germany proposed peace negotiations with the Allies on Decem- 
ber 12, 1916. The tone of this note indicated that Germany 
wished to dictate peace as a conqueror, and she gave no express 
conditions which might be discussed. The Allies saw in the 



A Brief History of the War 75 

proposal only an effort to throw responsibility for continuing 
the war upon them. 

On December 18, the President sent his note to all the bellig- 
erents asking them to define their war aims, and suggested the 
possibility of forming a future league to enforce peace. The 
replies received enabled America to .judge more clearly the atti- 
tude of the two sides. Germany boasted of her strength and re- 
fused to openly state her aims. Furthermore. Germany sought 
to force all neutrals to bring such pressure on the Allies as 
would end the war. Under a thinly veiled threat that the rights 
of neutrals would not be respected, warnings came that submar- 
ines would be unloosed upon all neutral commerce. On the 
other hand, the Allied nations sent forth frank replies in which 
they expressed a willingness to make liberal terms. They were 
determined to prevent Germany from accomplishing her pur- 
pose, but they were not fighting for conquest ; rather they sought 
to obtain conditions which would establish permanent peace. 

On January 22, 1917, President Wilson outlined to the Senate 
the kind of peace that the United States could join in guaran- 
teeing. "I' am proposing, as it were, that the nations should 
with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the 
doctrine of the world : that no nation should seek to extend its 
polity over any other nation or people, but that every people 
should be left free to determine its own polity, its own way of 
development, imhindered, , unthreatened, unafraid, the little 
along with the great and the powerful." "Mere agreements 
may not make peace secure. It will be absolutely necessary that 
a force be created as a guarantor of the permanency of the 
settlement so much greater than the force of any nation now en- 
gaged or any alliance hitherto formed or projected that no na- 
tion, no probable combination of nations, could face or with- 
stand it." 

Once this position was reached and we felt that America 
ought to lend her strength to the enforcement of future peace, 
the next logical step was to consider why it was not our duty 
to join the Allies who were fighting to obtain such a permanent 
peace. Did not the Allies constitute a league to enforce peace? 
They substantially agreed to the ideas of President Wilson, The 



76 University of Texas Bulletin 

American people were very close to participation in the war 
when they saw the situation in this light. 

During the last week in December, 1916, a note came into the 
possession of the State Department which had been written by 
Dr. Zimmermann, the German Secretary of State, to the German 
Minister in Mexico. It proposed an alliance between Germany 
and Mexico. Germany was to furnish Mexico with funds if 
Mexico would go to war with the United States. Mexico would 
receive Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas as her reward. The 
President of Mexico M^as to be urged to suggest to Japan that 
she join Mexico in fighting the United States. The note further 
said that Germany was prepared to bring England to her knees 
by ruthless submarine, warfare. 

On January 31, 1917, the German Government officially no- 
tified the United States that "from February 1, sea traffic will 
be stopped with every available weapon and without further no- 
tice. ' ' The German Chancellor stated that the only reason such 
a step had not been taken earlier was because Germany was 
not ready. Germany thus repudiated the Sussex pledge and fur- 
ther indicated that she had never intended to keep it. "In brief, 
under the guise of friendship and the cloak of false promises, 
it [the German Government] had been preparing this attack." 

All efforts at negotiation had failed. We had either to back 
down on what we had said concerning submarine warfare, or to 
prepare to support words with deeds. The German Ambassador 
was dismissed on February 3. This severing of diplomatic re- 
lations did not mean war. On the same day President Wilson 
addressed Congress. He drew a distinction between the Ger- 
man people and their Government, and said that we were friends 
of the German people. A policy of armed neutrality was re- 
commended. However, although the majority of both houses 
favored armed neutrality, action was held up by a small group 
of men until the regular session of Congress ended on March 
4. On March 12 orders were issued for the arming of American 
vessels. 

In the meantime, the Russian revolution occurred. Russia 
had been the one autocratic government on the Allied side. There 
was no longer any doubt that the Allies represented liberal, dem- 



A Brief History of the War 77 

ocratic principles. At last we could be sure that this was a war 
for freedom; further neutrality would have been contrary to the 
entire development of American views concerning the war. 

On April 2, 1917, President Wilson, asked Congress to declare 
war. "The present German submarine warfare against com- 
merce is a warfare against mankind. It is a warfare against all 
nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, 
in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the 
ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been 
sunk and overwhelmed in the same way. There has been no 
discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation 
must decide for itself how it will meet it. . . . There is one choice 
we can not make, we are incapable of making ; we will not choose 
the path of submission and suffer the sacred rights bf our na- 
tion and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs 
against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; 
they cut to the very roots of human life. 

"The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace 
must be planted upon the tested foundations of political lib- 
erty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, 
no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material 
compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but 
one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be 
satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faltli 
and freedom of nations can make them." 

On April 4 the Senate passed the declaration of war by a 
vote of 32 to 6. On April 6, it passed the House 373 to 50. 
The declaration reads as follows : 

"Whereas, the Imperial German Government has committed 
repeated acts of war against the Government and the people 
of the United States of America: Therefore be it 

"Resolved ly the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
state of war between the United States and the Imperial German 
Government which has thus been thrust upon the United States 
is hereby formally declared ; and that the President be, and he 
is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire military 
and naval forces of the United States and the resources of the 



78 University of Texas Bulletin 

Government to carry on war against fhe Imperial German Gov- 
ernment ; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all 
the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress 
of the United States." 

War was declared on Austria-Hungary December 7, 1917, 
unanimously by the Senate and with one dissenting vote in the 
House. 

It IS now the duty of every American citizen to aid his govern- 
ment by every means in his power. 



79 

A Brief History of the War 



CHAPTER VIII 
The Issues Involved 



German Militarism Must Be Crushed 

We have now considered the reasons that led the different 
nations r„ to war. Are they s.i.l fightin. for the sam end 
for which thev entered the war? In seneral they aie m, 
tor wnicft tney „,«„,.;„„ of alternate success and dis- 

four years of war and sutteimo, oi d fnndnmental 

eouragement, have brought a, clearer vision of the fundamental 

issues than could exist in 1914. 

We now Itnow that Germany had long prepared for wai. The 
results of the previous activities of the military class have been 
clearly revealed. Germany has waged war in a manner i,hich 
civilized peoples did not believe possible in 1914 Fu-'th-^o-; 
we now know the awful consequences of militarism let loose 
upon unoffending peoples. The world can now have no doubt of 
the consequences of German victory and of what German rule of 
conquered nations means. Gern^any has further revealed that 
conquest is her sole and only aim. She intends to -''!^^"^ 
to hold just as much European territory as her armies an ob- 
tain tor her. German treatment of Rus.sia and her dictatonal 
policy since the conclusion of peace with Russia prove that he 
has no respect for the conquered. She will never respect the 
rights of o'her peoples, nor relinquish her hold upon any coun- 
L that come under her control, until she has been compelled 
to do so bv the only means that she respects-foroe^ This much 
has four years of war taught us about Germany. There can be 
no further disillusionment. 



No Hope of Peace from the German People 

Without doubt the German people are war weary and de- 
sirous of peace. Perhaps there are many in Germany who are 
beginning to have doubts of their rulers, who brought upon them 
thrs war which seems never to end; but we can not find m such 
surmises any possible sign of German weakness. The military 
party has not allowed any popular discontent to change its war 



bU University of Texas Bulletin 

aims. The German people have no control of their affairs. They 
hare no legal means of asserting themselves and influencing the 
policy of the government, and there can be no revolution in 
Germany until the German armies are beaten and the German 
militarists are deprived of their power. The only possible revo- 
lution that can succeed in Germany is a revolution of the army, 
and that is not to be hoped for. The German people have doubt- 
less wanted peace, but they hope it will come from the subma- 
rine campaign or the next drive. They have been encouraged 
by one success after another to hope that the Allies would yield. 
Just now they take comfort in the collapse of Kussia and the 
belief that German armies can force a decision on the western 
front. They, like their leaders, seek a peace by victory. We 
must be under no illusions about possible internal troubles in 
Germany. There is no evidence to support such hopes. The 
Allies have one task only, and that is to destroy the German 
army. 

Peace That Would Restore Former Boundaries 

The time was, and doubtless will be, when the German leaders 
might accept a peace which would restore the conditions which 
existed before the war. Such a peace would mean that the awful 
sacrifices of this war had been in vain. Today Germany domi- 
nates Austria, for Austria would have collapsed as Russia did 
but for the stern control of the Prussian. To leave Austria de- 
pendent on Germany would mean that the peace of Europe 
would be in greater danger in the future than it was in 1914. 
Belgium and Northern Franee have been so devastated that it 
will take a generation to restore their prosperity. It is only just 
that Germany be made to pay for the ruin that she has so ruth- 
lessly wrought upon the innocent. The present state of Russia 
would enable Germany to interfere with the efforts of the Rus- 
sian people to establish for themselves a democratic government. 
They must be allowed a free hand to Avork out their own salva- 
tion, that the world may have one more great democracy. Fur- 
thermore, with Russia in her present demoralized condition, there 
would no longer be a strong Russian state to act as a clieck u] on 
German aggression. France has been greatly weakened and 



A Brief History of the War 81 

can not recover her former strength for a long time to come. 
The Balkan situation would be more favorable to Germany with 
Roumania and Serbia weakened and Bulgaria dominant in 
Southeastern Europe. Such a peace would only mean that Ger- 
many would at once prepare for the next war, which she would 
start under more favorable circumstances than in 1914. 

The Principle of Nationality 

There is, further, the necessity of continuing the war until 
the principle of nationality is definitely recognized. A nation is 
a people united by common traditions, or a common language, 
pT by common blood, perhaps by economic unity of interests. 
One of the principles often stated as a war aim of the Allied 
nations is that all peoples shall have the right to determine for 
themselves what their future shall be. There can be no surer 
check placed upon German aggression than the application of 
this principle. 

Belgium was a nation and must be so again. The Polish 
people have kept their nationality, although German, Austrian, 
and Russian autocracies have endeavored to destroy it. Fin- 
land has claimed that it is a nation and is today separate from 
Russia: is it free from German domination? The nationalities 
of the Balkan states are in an uncompleted stage of develop- 
ment. These states must have a free opportunity to work out 
their own future. Finally, there is the Dual Monarchy of Aus- 
tria-Hungar.y, which today rules a mixture of races and nation- 
alities. These peoples have been forced together under the rule 
of a monarchv, and they have no control over their affairs. The 
rulers of Austria-Hungary have been unable to fuse Czechs, 
Poles, Ruthenes, Slovenes, Dalmatians, Italians, Croatians, Slo- 
vaks, and Roumanians into a nation. In this situation Europe 
will have further trouble unless these people are given a chance 
to govern themselves. Until this territory is released from Ger- 
man influence, German ambition to rule other peoples without 
considering their own wishes and desires is bound to cause Eu- 
rope trouble. 



82 University of Texas Bulletin 

The Backward Races 

There is the further question of what is to be done with the 
peoples outside of Europe who are now governed by European 
states. Economic development has led European nations to 
seek markets for their manufactured products. This has pro- 
duced rivalry and competition which has often threatened to end 
in war. Disorder in such territory causes nations to step in to 
establish order, and the result is a protectorate or a sphere of 
influence. When a settlement by European colonists is possible, 
civilization is rapidly established; but if the climate is tropical, 
the problem of how to deal with backward inhabitants becomes 
much more difficult to solve. Such races are not ready to be 
treated as nations ; they must be taught and guided until' they 
reach a stage of development that will permit them to solve their 
own problems. Too often they have been merely exploited for 
the benefit of the state which controls them. The United States 
rules the Philippines, but we are seeking to educate the inhab- 
itants so that they may govern themselves in the future. Eng- 
land has recently sent a commission to India to consider the best 
method of giving Indians some measure of self-government, and 
England will ultimately deal with India as we intend to deal 
with the Philippines. 

The war has resulted in the releasing of peoples in Western 
Asia from the domination of the Turks. There has been talk of 
restoring Palestine to the Jews. What disposition should be 
made of the other territories which may be left to the determina- 
tion of the Allied nations? Certainly they ought not to be left 
under Turkish oppression. Only the best interests of the people 
involved should be considered. 

All the colonies of Germany have been taken from her. Ger- 
many has not shown herself to be very successful in dealing- with 
backward peoples. She has not shown that she has the interests 
of any people that she has ever ruled at heart. Will it be wise to 
restore these colonies to Germany? Would such restoration be 
to the interests of the peoples whom she has controlled? 



A Brief History of the War 83 

What AlUed Victory Will Mean 

All such adjustments depend upon how completely the Allies 
succeed in defeating- the Prussian autocracy. It must be re- 
membered that complete victory is now necessary because until 
the Russian people raise themselves from anarchy, there will 
no longer be a strong- Russian state to act as a check upon Ger- 
man aggression. France has been greatly weakened, and will 
not recover her former strength for years to come. An incom- 
plete victory would leave Germany relatively stronger than she 
was in 1914. 

The strength of the Allied cause has come more and more 
to rest on the claim that the Allies fight only for ultimate jus- 
tice. The United States will most certainly stand for the best 
treatment of nationalities and backward races. The final ar- 
rangements for peace can not be obstructed by the selfish inter- 
ests of any great nation involved. The issues are too great, too 
vast, to allow petty desires to prevent the ultimate solution to 
be anything less than justice to all peoples, great and small. On 
no other basis can future peace be built. 

A League to Enforce Peace 

The present war had its origin in the inability of great nations 
to trust each other. If all possible rivalries and future causes 
of misunderstanding are removed by the terms of the final peace, 
much will have been done to prevent war. However, no set- 
tlement proposed now can foresee all the difficulties that may 
arise in the future. It has therefore been proposed that an in- 
ternational league be formed for the preservation of peace. 

Such a confederation could have as its organ a representative 
court, perhaps a representative legislature or congress, to make 
international laws for the regulation of the relations between na- 
tions. But to make its actions effective, there must be an interna- 
tional executive backed by the force of the united strength of the 
leauue in order to do police duty among the nations of the world. 

President Wilson says: "Mere agreements may not make 
peace secure. It will be absolutely necessary that a force be 
created as a guarantor of the permanency of the settlement so 
much greater than the force of any nation now engaged or any 



84 University of Texas Bulletin 

alliance hitherto formed or projected that no nation, no prob- ^ 
able combination of nations, could face or withstand it. If the 
peace presently to be made is to endure, it must be a peace made 
secure by the great organized major force of mankind." The 
suffering of this war, the terrible ruin that its conclusion will 
reveal, will doubtless cause the great nations to form some such 
organization. 

There are many indications that the Allied nations are al- 
ready establishing the foundations for such a league. The 
British Empire has proven itself to be a great confederation 
which is not at all held together by bonds of force. Australians, 
Canadians, and South Africans voluntarily fight with English 
and French. The United States has joined them, but is not 
bound to the Allies by any treaty. The bond between these 
peoples is not merely that of self-preservation; it is a feeling 
that they are acting for the best interests of all mankind. The 
Allies are continually merging all questions of national pride 
in their common cause. Today there is an Inter- Allied C >na- 
cil, which takes no thought of any national interests, but only 
of the united interest of all. A French general commands Eng- 
lish, America, Portuguese, Italian, and French troops. Amer- 
ican troops take their place in the English and French armies 
to secure better co-operation. National individuality is for- 
gotten in the need for united action. Thus the Allies are al- 
ready revealing the spirit of an international league. 

Conclusion 

The struggle in which we are now engaged is a war against 
war. Every American is fighting that the world may forever 
know peace, for is not modern warfare too terrible to be toler- 
ated by the civilized world? Germany has praised the moral 
value of war, but she has shown it to be barbarous, brutal, and 
destructive beyond all belief. Its horrible waste is too great 
to be grasped by any single mind. The class of men who started 
this war, the ideas which caused it, the injustice to peoples in 
which it had its origin, must be removed. If a united decision 
can be obtained that no other great war will ever be possible, 
then this war will not have been fought in vain. The war can 



A Brief History of the War 85 



• 



not be permitted to stop until this result has been obtained. So 
frightful has been the sa6rifice of life that anything short of a 
complete righting of the wrongs which have been done will be a 
terrible injustice to the millions who have already died. There 
can be no truce, there can be no righteous termination of this 
war, until German militarism and German ambitions are com- 
pletely crushed. Democracy can give no quarter to autocracy. 



86 University of Texas Bulletin 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The War Cyclopedia. Committee on Public Information. 25 
cents. 

Harding, S. B., Outline for the Study of the War. Committee 
on Public Information. 

Davis, W. S., The Roots of the War. 1918. The Century Co., 
$1.50. 

Cheradame, A., The Pan-American Plot Unmasked. 1917. 
Scribner. $1.25. 

Schmitt, B. E., Germany and England. Princeton University- 
Press. 1916. $2.00. 

Dawson, W. H., What Is Wrong With Germany. 1915. Long- 
mans. $1.00. 

'*/ Accuse," by a German. 1915. Doran. $1.50. 

Hazen, C. D., The Government of Germany. Committee of 
Public Information. 

Munro, D. C, German War Practices. Committee on Public In- 
formation. 

Beer, G. L., The English Speaking Peoples. 1917. Macmillan. 

$1.50. 
Powers, H. H., The Things Men Fight For. 1916. Macmillan. 

$1.50. 
Cheradame, A., The United States and Pan-Germania. 1918. 

Scribner. 
Sabatier, P., A Frenchman's Thoughts on the War. 1916. 

Scribner. $1.25. 
Toynbee, A. J., The German Terror in Belgium. 1917. Doran. 

$1.00. 
Hazen, J). C, Alsace-Lorraine Under German Rule. 1917. 

Holt. $1.25. 
Johnson, D. W., Topography and Strategy in the War. 1917. 

Henry Holt & Co. 



A Brief History of tJie War 87 

Muir: Nationalism <ind Internationalism. 1917. Houghton, 

$1.25. 
Muir: The Expa^ision of Europe. 1917. Houghton, $2.00. 
Seton-Watson : Democracy and Nationalism. 1915. Macmil- 

lan, $.80. 
Lippman : The Stakes of Diplomacy. 1915. Holt, $1.25. 

Illustrated lectures by University faculty members and otheri 
may be secured from the University of Texas. 

MAPS 

1. The Western Front. 

2. Subject Nationalities of the German Alliance. 

3. The Pan-German Plan. 



S W © vJi l; CT Ml Mf'W On^MTl ES. 

OF THE 






i ^<if/ond//fy 


Sidte 


Number* 


Pfrtxei} 


ri 


JUGOSLAVS 


Austr.a 

Hungary 

Bosnia 


2.OJ6.00O 
2,940,000 
1,898.000 


7 2 

14 
lOO.O 


-.- 






134 


p 


ROUMANIANS 


Austria 

Hungary 


275,000 
2,949,000 


09 
14 1 




TotQ\ 


?,Z 24.000 


63 


□ ITALIANS 
^H GREEKS 

^21 ARMENIANS 
■■ LAZES 
j— -J KURDS 
HkEj NESTORIANS 
[ 1 ARABS 


Austria 
Turkey 

Bulgaria 
TurRey 

" 1 

: \ 


768000 
2,000000 

7 
2,000.000 

2,000.000 
^000,000 


2.7 
100 
7 

10.0 
100 

3S0 


All Tin.'a/ jJu6/<rM Totdl 

Colors iW,0'75//''P^ GfrmanA;',5^e 


47,392000 


33 8 



1'o°o°q'1 Fxproprtatwru of (Ac Sermon Anjifd^ungsHommusum! 
IW\'\ Jewish. Cohru&suilhlestute. 



' Bosnia) 
GERMANY ♦AUSTRIA 

HUNGARY ^Wiih Bosnia) 1161035,000 

BULGARIA A,538,000* 

TURKEY 20,000,000 

TOTAL GERMAN ALLIANCE 

• The flsrureR for the Ottoman Empire are conjectural . 

t Thin titfure differs by half a million from the sum of the Items of the Tarioas 

natiunalitieM in the Uermun Empire ^iven in the othercolunin becuutiethe Ger- 

" ~ ^- - .... • hey liave tobe 

"All-Deutscher 
j at the Germans' 
expense, 
t The difference between this fiRiire and the numbers of Iiul«ar8 In Bulgaria 



iiment omitted these itenis from its last 
tnally from earlier flK^res p 
s certainly unlikely to fuvorthe 



, but Heparate figur< 



jlable. 



WHY GERMANY WANTS PEACE NOW 



le 



THE PANGERMAN PLAN 

as realised by War 
IN EUROPE AND IN ASIA 




lany 68,000,000 

Austria-Huneary 52,000.000 

Bulearia 5 500.P0O 

Turkey 19,500,000 



The Occupied Territory (Jaii'y 1918) 

Belgium 6,500,000 

Northern France 6,000,000 

Poland, Lithuxnia, Courland I8,,'iOo,000 

Serbia, Montenegro 5.000,000 

Roumania 5,000,000 

Italy 1,000,000 



TO-DAY GERMANY CONTROLS 

Revised from "The New Europe" January 11. 1<I!7 



42,000,000 

187,000,000 People 



; 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




021 394 380 7 
I 



